Do conservatives not realize they look absolutely ridiculous with their conspiracy theories?

[bshole]

No. You haven't. You have yet to show one valid example of the mainstream media intentionally and irresponsibly inciting people to violence or duping them with conspiracy theories.

I would suggest that Libya, Iraq and Syria are all PERFECT examples of exactly that. How many dead? How many trillions spent? Who led the cheerleading? We have a media enamored with American forces slaughtering third world citizens. I dunno how that point is the least bit arguable.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would suggest that Libya, Iraq and Syria are all PERFECT examples of exactly that. How many dead? How many trillions spent? Who led the cheerleading? We have a media enamored with American forces slaughtering third world citizens. I dunno how that point is the least bit arguable.

You have a point but it's clear that Amused referenced domestic rather than foreign affairs.

 

[realibrad]

He hasn't, he has kept trying to avoid admitting that entirely. See that post of his, where he tried to pin blame upon leftie media for that one murderous guy. When he was taking to task for it, he just melted and would not acknowledge that just because he watches Democracy Now, does not mean Democracy Now incited him to murder others.

If he genuinely believed that right wingers are more prone to adhering to lunatics, why does he do everything to avoid saying that? It would only take a sentence, and he refuses time and time again. Hell, in his post, he states that they are equal.

So what is this?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...piracy-theories.2538348/page-12#post-39322003

The NYT article I posted showed evidence of equal susceptibility, because susceptibility is a function of partisanship and perceived power or perception of control.

I already conceded that for the present, the right is leading the crazy.

So again, you seem to have gotten what you wanted. I am even showing you the post where he literally says it. He even agreed with others before this post that have said that the Right currently has more.

 

[bshole]

You have a point but it's clear that Amused referenced domestic rather than foreign affairs.

I believe the mainstream media has a profit motive in promoting conflict. Conflict brings viewers and profit. They pimp shit that is controversial and causes conflict all the fucking time. It is poisonous and harmful to our system to have a media with this type of bias (towards conflict). This applicable domestically and internationally.

Jon Stewart identified this years ago:

I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say its towards a liberal agenda. It's light fluff so it's absolutely within the wheelhouse.

 

[realibrad]

I believe the mainstream media has a profit motive in promoting conflict. Conflict brings viewers and profit. They pimp shit that is controversial and causes conflict all the fucking time. It is poisonous and harmful to our system to have a media with this type of bias (towards conflict). This applicable domestically and internationally.

Jon Stewart identified this years ago:

Its just what people want though. Everyone wants a good story. Nobody would watch a movie about a bunch of typical basic stuff, so why would news be any different. They can make far more money if they give us what we want.

 

[Jhhnn]

I believe the mainstream media has a profit motive in promoting conflict. Conflict brings viewers and profit. They pimp shit that is controversial and causes conflict all the fucking time. It is poisonous and harmful to our system to have a media with this type of bias (towards conflict). This applicable domestically and internationally.

Jon Stewart identified this years ago:

That hasn't changed since the dawn of the Republic. Sensational news & conspiracy theory aren't exactly the same thing, either. Mass murder is always sensational news. It's not conspiracy theory until the gun nuts start working it over.

 

[MajinCry]

So what is this?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...piracy-theories.2538348/page-12#post-39322003



So again, you seem to have gotten what you wanted. I am even showing you the post where he literally says it. He even agreed with others before this post that have said that the Right currently has more.

That's not what he said. He prefaces it with:

The NYT article I posted showed evidence of equal susceptibility

He means that the Republicans do have the Alex Jones types, but Liberals are just as susceptible to it. That is to say, the Republicans at the moment have Alex Jones, and the Liberals don't currently have one, but the Liberals are ripe for the picking by an entrepreneurial nutter.

 

[realibrad]

That's not what he said. He prefaces it with:



He means that the Republicans do have the Alex Jones types, but Liberals are just as susceptible to it. That is to say, the Republicans at the moment have Alex Jones, and the Liberals don't currently have one, but the Liberals are ripe for the picking by an entrepreneurial nutter.

No, that does not logically follow. He is saying that the article shows that the Left is starting to believe in more conspiracies. Here is from the article.

In total, the percentage of Democrats who agreed on average with the conspiracy claims in the scale increased from 27 percent before the election to 32 percent afterward. By contrast, Republicans’ willingness to endorse conspiratorial claims declined after the election over all and for three of the four statements, pushing down the percentage of Republicans who agreed on average with the statements from 28 percent to 19 percent.

In other words, losing the presidential election made Democrats more likely to blame secret conspiracies for the state of the world, while making Republicans less willing to indulge these sorts of claims. If you don’t believe me, just compare your social media news feeds with what you saw during the campaign — or ask yourself who you think is behind the news you are seeing.

What he is saying by proxy through the article is that Democrats are now more likely to blame conspiracies than Republicans. That then goes with what he said before that they are susceptible and this seems to connect with that. If anything, this article is a counter to the idea that right now its mainly a Right issue.

 

[MajinCry]

No, that does not logically follow. He is saying that the article shows that the Left is starting to believe in more conspiracies. Here is from the article.



What he is saying by proxy through the article is that Democrats are now more likely to blame conspiracies than Republicans. That then goes with what he said before that they are susceptible and this seems to connect with that. If anything, this article is a counter to the idea that right now its mainly a Right issue.

As was discussed previously in the thread, there was nothing in the sources, the individual watched, that would incite murderous behaviour. Remember, Starbuck said that Robert Reich was a conspiracy nut, a claim without basis. When called on that, he didn't provide examples of these leftist conspiracies inciting violence.

 

[realibrad]

As was discussed previously in the thread, there was nothing in the sources, the individual watched, that would incite murderous behaviour. Remember, Starbuck said that Robert Reich was a conspiracy nut, a claim without basis. When called on that, he didn't provide examples of these leftist conspiracies inciting violence.

That is an expansion that is not part of the claim. His claim was that the Left was susceptible to conspiracies. Remember, I asked you what you wanted, and you said this...

The first post was another user saying that both sides are susceptible to being prone to conspiracy theories. He then said "don't bring facts into this". So I asked him to give me an equal to the Republican's Alex Jones. He couldn't find one, so I asked him to state that both sides aren't equally susceptible to crazed lunatics.

I've repeatedly asked him to say that both sides aren't equal. He then runs away, throwing out a "moving the goalposts", a fallacy that he doesn't even understand. If he didn't think both sides were susceptible to the same levels of crazy, he'd just have to say "No disagreement here".

He didn't, he hemmed and hawed, and avoided answering it and kept saying I was dishonest.

Now, it was not that he simply could not find one, it was that he did not believe there was one. Very different. Further, you originally said that you wanted him to admit the sides are not equal, and he has clearly done that.

So again, what you said your goal was has been met, yet you are still going with this.

1st, is the issue that you felt he was saying the Left and Right are equal in terms of conspiracies. He disagrees.

2nd, based off of your understanding, you then ask for proof by an equal example, but, he cannot provide one because he does not think there is an equal to the example of the person on the Right you gave.

3rd, you continue to press him to back up the 1st even though he does not hold the inherent beliefs of the 1st.

4th, you say you are asking him to explicitly disagree with the 1st and he does.

5th, you go back to the 2nd asking him to provide an example that would show he does not actually agree with the 1st, which he already did in the 4th.

6th, you now say its really about the 2nd, but, that only came about in response to the 1st.

 

[MajinCry]

That is an expansion that is not part of the claim. His claim was that the Left was susceptible to conspiracies. Remember, I asked you what you wanted, and you said this...



Now, it was not that he simply could not find one, it was that he did not believe there was one. Very different. Further, you originally said that you wanted him to admit the sides are not equal, and he has clearly done that.

So again, what you said your goal was has been met, yet you are still going with this.

1st, is the issue that you felt he was saying the Left and Right are equal in terms of conspiracies. He disagrees.

2nd, based off of your understanding, you then ask for proof by an equal example, but, he cannot provide one because he does not think there is an equal to the example of the person on the Right you gave.

3rd, you continue to press him to back up the 1st even though he does not hold the inherent beliefs of the 1st.

4th, you say you are asking him to explicitly disagree with the 1st and he does.

5th, you go back to the 2nd asking him to provide an example that would show he does not actually agree with the 1st, which he already did in the 4th.

6th, you now say its really about the 2nd, but, that only came about in response to the 1st.

1. Not what he stated at the beginning of the thread. Someonesmind said:

Why are you trying to articulate that this is somehow a partisan issue?

Flat earthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't discriminate last I checked. And if you want to get partisan, perfect example for moronic liberals would be vaccines... And that takes it to a whole new level of stupid - but at least theirs ends with death so that thoughts that stupid don't get passed on.

And he responded with:

You are wasting your time. Facts don’t fit the narrative.

He clearly agrees with someonesmind's equivalence.

2. Right, I asked for an example of severely loony conspiracy theorists that are believed in the mainstream. Best he could do was Robert Reich, after admitting that there is no equal on the Liberals' side to Alex Jones.

3. He hasn't stated that at all. He's only stated that there is no equivalence to lunatic icons between the two parties. After all this back and forth over he-said-she-said, he still has not come out and clearly stated that he believes Republicans are more prone to conspiracy theories and whatnot. Easy enough to rectify; he just needs to post exactly that in this thread. He hasn't, and he won't, because he doesn't believe that.

4. He hasn't.

5. No, after he came out with one example of a murderous Liberal, he said he became that way due to him watching Democracy Now, CNN, and Robert Reich. He hasn't provided the evidence for that, just stating that because he watched those shows, that they thusly prompted him to shoot others. Other posters took him to task on this, and he's just doubled down on it, not providing any evidence.

6. I am still waiting for him to come out and state tht the Republicans are more prone to conspiracy lunacy. Apparently you think he believes that, and he has still not stated it.

@Starbuck1975 Settle this dispute because it's gone on long enough. Yes/no question: Do you think that Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than Liberals?

 

[bshole]

That's not what he said. He prefaces it with:
He means that the Republicans do have the Alex Jones types, but Liberals are just as susceptible to it. That is to say, the Republicans at the moment have Alex Jones, and the Liberals don't currently have one, but the Liberals are ripe for the picking by an entrepreneurial nutter.

If there are millions to be made, it will get done. I wouldn't mind going full nutter for profit. The problem is that full nutter is not enough, you have to be charismatic and interesting as well (and the second part is far harder than the first part).

 

[realibrad]

1. Not what he stated at the beginning of the thread. Someonesmind said:



And he responded with:



He clearly agrees with someonesmind's equivalence.

No. Me and him both do not see it as an equivalence in terms of 50/50. Even if you believe that the person did believe that, then all you are saying is there is a misunderstanding. He has literally said they are not equal. You are building everything off the assumption that he agrees with your interpretation of that original post, and he has stated over and over he does not. Everything comes from this one misunderstanding and no matter how many times you are told otherwise, you still disagree with how he understood the meaning.

2. Right, I asked for an example of severely loony conspiracy theorists that are believed in the mainstream. Best he could do was Robert Reich, after admitting that there is no equal on the Liberals' side to Alex Jones.

Correct, but that seems like a weird question given it establishes nothing against his position.

3. He hasn't stated that at all. He's only stated that there is no equivalence to lunatic icons between the two parties. After all this back and forth over he-said-she-said, he still has not come out and clearly stated that he believes Republicans are more prone to conspiracy theories and whatnot. Easy enough to rectify; he just needs to post exactly that in this thread. He hasn't, and he won't, because he doesn't believe that.

If your argument is outcome in terms of belief, he has answered it. If you are talking about how able the ideas are able to get into the Left and Right, then that is not something that I think you are going to win, as the article clearly shows. The Right has more conspiracy believers right now, but the article clearly shows that trend being flipped post Trump and its either past or equal to the Right. So if that is the hill you want to die on, which is that the Left is much better at fending on conspiracies then you will lose that.

4. He hasn't.

Dude, I literally linked the post where he said that the Right has more crazies right now. How is that not him answering that?

5. No, after he came out with one example of a murderous Liberal, he said he became that way due to him watching Democracy Now, CNN, and Robert Reich. He hasn't provided the evidence for that, just stating that because he watched those shows, that they thusly prompted him to shoot others. Other posters took him to task on this, and he's just doubled down on it, not providing any evidence.

Use this to understand how something can be misunderstood. You first asked him to say that he believes they are not equal, and he does. Then you ask for an example of something that goes against his belief, and he says he cant. You then keep going back to asking for an example over and over. That is what I am talking about.

6. I am still waiting for him to come out and state tht the Republicans are more prone to conspiracy lunacy. Apparently you think he believes that, and he has still not stated it.

If that is now what you what, which is different that what you said before. You told me that you wanted this "I've repeatedly asked him to say that both sides aren't equal.", and you got your answer because he said the Right has more crazies right now.

Settle this dispute because it's gone on long enough. Yes/no question: Do you think that Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than Liberals?

Look at this.

http://www.as.miami.edu/personal/cklofstad/27_consp_info_cues_PRQ.pdf

If this is your question, then find your answer here.

While most previous studies examine conspiracy theories that appeal mainly to members of one political party or the other, McClosky and Chong (1985) examine the underlying propensity toward seeing conspiracies and find that Republicans and Democrats are equally disposed toward conspiratorial thinking.

There is data on this. If you are asking who has more crazies right now, he answered it. If you are asking who is more prone, then he has apparently answered that too, but his position is backed by data.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you think that Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than Liberals?

Do I think that Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than liberals: No

Do I think that PRESENTLY, Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than liberals: Yes

Do you notice the distinction between the two questions? I’ve consistently held this position throughout the entire thread. @realibrad clearly understands the distinction.

The only people who do not are the ones who are too stubborn, intellectually dishonest or partisan to acknowledge otherwise.

There is nothing left to discuss.

@realibrad I appreciate you trying to clarify. He has no interest in clarity. I invite you to disengage.

 

[realibrad]

Do I think that Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than liberals: No

Do I think that PRESENTLY, Republicans are more prone to wild conspiracies than liberals: Yes

Do you notice the distinction between the two questions? I’ve consistently held this position throughout the entire thread. @realibrad clearly understands the distinction.

The only people who do not are the ones who are too stubborn, intellectually dishonest or partisan to acknowledge otherwise.

There is nothing left to discuss.

@realibrad I appreciate you trying to clarify. He has no interest in clarity. I invite you to disengage.

I might. I will say that he is at least being civil which is respectable. I also think he is nice enough to engage as I have done so in the past about his draw call thread. I don't think he is trying to be dishonest, I just don't think he is getting what is happening yet.

 

[pmv]

If there are millions to be made, it will get done. I wouldn't mind going full nutter for profit. The problem is that full nutter is not enough, you have to be charismatic and interesting as well (and the second part is far harder than the first part).

Other qualities are also required. Shamelessness, for one, and a certain recklessness (once you've gone full nutter bastard can you ever go back? what if the political wind changes and you find yourself stranded alone out there, stigmatised forever in crazytown?). You're right that there's a lot of money to be made in boundless self-confident charlatanry, regardless of ideological specifics.