I hate to bring it up almost twice in a row, but I keep running across stuff that makes me question why exactly everyone is so quick to dismiss "conspiracy theories".
First of all, there are "conspiracy theories" and then there are things that haven't been explained well. It seems to me that these should be exclusive categories. Most "conspiracies" have been explained (i.e. the 'fake' moon landing, crop circles, etc.) but in situations like this one, most of the irregularities not only haven't been explained, they've been ridiculed.
I'm all for ridicule. I enjoy it. I ridicule people, places, feelings, NASCAR, and weather patterns on a routine basis. But I also believe in fact, and in not deriding a theory simply because it can somewhat easily be lumped into a grouping of other, crazier theories. And it seems to me that the mainstream media--not just partisan media, but pretty much everyone--falls to easily into the trap of automatically discounting a theory simply because there are other theories about the same event that are kooky.
Example: Someone alleges that the 2004 and 2000 elections were "stolen" by a CIA taskforce intent on ensuring a GOP presidency. They believe this because a former CIA intern is in the background of a picture taken in Palm Beach, FL, during the big 2000 mess.* Somebody else alleges that the voter rolls from 2000 and 2004 were extraordinarily low in some precincts, and that this abnormality is compounded by all the precincts being traditionally Democratic strongholds.**
Now, the first person just has a kooky theory, based on nothing but a photograph. The second person just has questions that need answering. If you can't see the difference in these two "conspiracy theories" then you need to read it again until you do.
* I made this up.
** I did not make this up. Sadly.
3 comments:
Well... well... well.... finally..
my son is starting to question all the BS presented by the government and "in the pocket" media. That's my boy. Maybe I am not crazy after all !!!
It is amazing that information, in the information age, can be squelched so quickly just by the government issuing a ridiculous anti-conspiracy statement.
The 2004 presidential elections were impacted by a conscious well thought out plan of how to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters.. all while barely breaking the law. Or at least we dont know if they broke the law .. YET !!
It’s good to be skeptical. It’s good to be skeptical of politicians, talking heads, religious leaders, pundits, scientists, and even historians. But being skeptical without applying some critical thinking is pretty much a waste of time and leads to more “conspiracy theories”. You claim that your two examples are different, but they aren’t. The allegation concerning voter rolls has no more creditability then the first example. If the person(s) making the allegation cannot identify the precincts and quote the exact numbers that show a difference between the two years then this is a totally unfounded theory. But even if the precincts can be named and the numbers can but on paper there still wouldn’t be any evidence without analysis (which should include ‘94, ’98, and ’02) of what might be a cause of any change in the number of people on the rolls. We all would like to find a rational explanation of why Ohio seems to have lost its collective good sense when it went the way it went in ’04, but hinting at some nefarious conspiracy isn’t the answer.
See, this is exactly what I mean, though.
You say they're the same because they're both just theories; true, but one of them can be proven with proper research. I'm not saying it's true, but rather that, unlike kooky theory #1, kooky theory #2 can be proved or disproved with analysis.
The problem is when people (like anonymous, actually) instantly label them all "nefarious conspiracy theories" and thus dissuade all but the most non-credible and fringe researchers from engaging in the brutal task of actually examining the theory. It may not be credible, but by labeling it "crackpot" just because it doesn't fit our immediate world view, we do a disservice to finding the truth.
My two cents, sure. But I stand by my original post. I do appreciate the comments, though, which is why I went back so far to reply.
Post a Comment