Everyone Is a Conspiracy Theorist

This is a term that's thrown around a lot nowadays, and I suppose its usage is fairly warranted. With readily available information on pretty much any given subject, with constant media coverage or lack thereof, and with instant communication at hand, we find ourselves gathering around in little communities based on shared interests or worldviews, and we also find ourselves observing other perhaps rival communities from the outside. I think that creates a strange psychological phenomenon whereby when looking at a lot of people who are believing in the same thing or acting in a certain way, we irrationally believe within ourselves that the world is filled with people just like that. Statistically it's no way near the case, but we seemingly fall into that perception regardless of the issue at hand. That's a strange psychological phenomenon I've been thinking about lately and that I might have to look into some more, but the reason I bring it up now is because, according to a similar train of thought, we gain knowledge of certain groups of people in society, we read up on what they believe in, and then we immediately and pejoratively deem them to be conspiracy theorists. Thing is though, we apparently only do that when we believe them to be wrong, and more interestingly, we never consider ourselves as part of a conspiratorial group when in truth, or at least the way I see it, we are all conspiracy theorists.

My initial thought when writing this article was to begin with a dictionary definition of the first term, then of the second, and lastly of the expression of the two put together. But I quickly decided it wasn't expedient, the reason being that dictionary definitions often fail to do justice to the more philosophical meanings of the terms. Then again, by ignoring them I might fall into a categorical error, but whatever. Philosophize first, ask questions later, that's what I always say... So my argument essentially boils down to this – there is no fundamental difference between any given structured worldview and what we call a conspiracy. I think the only significant difference we can identify is solely based on perception, and thus it's a subjective one. The way I see it, there's no difference between believing in oddball things or believing in true things, especially because, and this is the main point, those who are not convinced by the premises of any given theory will inevitably see those who do as conspiracy theorists. Then you might become baffled when you hear from people who believe in strange things, but the truth is that you, whoever you are, likely believe in things that disbelievers also consider very strange. Religion is an obvious candidate here because believers of one religion cling to miracles and yet they consider miracles of other religions to be seemingly impossible, but I think the same type of reasoning applies all over. You might think to yourself that your belief isn't strange because you have evidences and you can even list them. However, those you call conspiracy theorists have their own evidences as well, and they feel the exact same way you do when you don't believe them.

So the difference seems to lie only on perception, usually media perception. I suppose a distinct trait of a conspiracy theory would involve the idea that somehow and for some reason people are trying to suppress such and such information. People who believe the Earth is flat say so as much, but the same thing applies to more level-headed positions such as climate change, for example. Those who deem climate change to be a dire problem might say that some information is being suppressed by powerful people whose work is tied with some polluting industries, and that's a fairly reasonable thing to believe in. But the exact same belief is also held by people on the opposing side of the argument, and when they claim media injustice or suppression of information on the part of powerful individuals, you won't take so kindly to it, your senses will tell you the person you are speaking to is crazy and that you should save your breath. But seriously, is it very different? And who doesn't reason that way? Atheists see society as unfairly titled towards religion whereas believers see society as unfairly titled towards atheism, vegans see society as unfairly titled towards animal product consumption whereas meat eaters see society as unfairly titled towards veganism, people on the left see society as unfairly titled towards right-wing policies whereas people on the right see society as unfairly titled towards left-wing policies... So who can be right? I dunno and it don't matter. My point here isn't to pick a side or to talk about truth, my point here is only to argue that, whenever you place yourself on one side of the argument, you immediately become a conspiracy theorist in the eyes of people who have placed themselves on the other side. We all want people to believe the same way we do because we have evidences of it, but we never consider the possibility that we are the wrong ones and that our ideological opponents deny our arguments with good reasons.

And so I don't quite understand how the label of “conspiracy theorist” became so poisoned lately. One side of any argument always attacks the other by accusing it of believing in whack conspiracies, but then defends itself by presenting what the other side considers a whack conspiracy as well. It's just the nature of the world I suppose, it's a whole myriad of people working with and against each other in order to further their own interests, whatever they might be. And as a brief sidenote, it's just funny to see how nowadays we greatly admire morally gray characters and complex narratives in fiction, but in real life we tend to see everything as a good-bad binary whereby we are automatically the good guys and our opponents are irredeemable villains... And in all that we seemingly can't realize that believing in conspiracies is something we all do, we just don't always call it a conspiracy. We never consider our worldviews to be conspiracies because we seem to understand the term as referring to something false, and we never, ever believe in false things. No, not us... It's as if our definition of a conspiracy theorist is someone who believes in false things, and so we are never theorists because we believe in the truth. The catch is that not a single person claims to believe false things. It's just not in the nature of belief.

On that note I often wonder if people are naive too, because at a certain point it seems to make complete and total sense to believe that some powerful people in the world might eventually use their influence one way or another, no? Is it wise to believe that people in charge of whatever government or institution are always completely honest and transparent? Well then, if you believe that those in charge of institutions in opposition to yours are dishonest, what makes you so confident that those in charge of governments and institutions you defend are honest? It simply doesn't add up. The distance between A and B has to be the same between B and A... And then what about when a conspiracy is later on proven to be true? For instance, if you had lived in the fifties you would have seen adverts that pretty much suggest smoking is good for you, and that doctors even recommended it. Now, if you had a friend going on and on about how all that stuff is fake and that doctors and other people are being bribed to defend it, would you believe him or would you call him a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist? You might be more inclined to go with the latter than you realize, but if so then you'd be wrong. And thus I have to ask – in believing complex, multi-layered theories that support odd beliefs and in knowing that in the past certain conspiracies turned out to be true, why is it that nowadays people have such blind faith in whatever their side tells them, and such blind dismissal to whatever the other side says? Why is it that those who consider the term “conspiracy theorist” to be an insult seemingly believe that there are no such things as conspiracies?

As always, I dunno. And as for me, if you were to ask me if I'm a conspiracy theorist I'd have to say no simply for the linguistic reason that the term is tainted towards describing people who believe in silly things that involve strange science. On that point, there could perhaps be a psychological component that creates degrees of belief in conspiracies. But from a slightly more epistemological standpoint, I suppose some things I believe in involve a slightly more complex system of argumentation whereby if you don't accept one or two basic premises, the whole thing becomes pointless. Truth is everyone else believes that way, it's just that nobody calls their belief a conspiracy.

Comments

A Minha Interpretação Pessoal de “Às Vezes, em Sonho Triste” de Fernando Pessoa

Já há muito tempo que não lia nada que o Fernando Pessoa escreveu, e talvez por esse motivo, mas principalmente porque buscava ideias sobre as quais escrever aqui, decidi folhear um livro de poemas dele. E enquanto o fiz, tomei especial nota das marcas que apontei na margem de algumas páginas, significando alguns poemas que gostei quando os li pela primeira vez, há cerca de sete anos atrás. Poderia ter escolhido um poema mais nostálgico ou até mais famoso, mas ao folhear por todo o livro foi este o poema que me fez mais sentido escolher. Agora leio e releio estes versos e comprometo-me a tecer algo que não me atreverei a chamar de análise, porque não sou poeta nem crítico de poesia. Mas como qualquer outro estudante português, fui leitor de Fernando Pessoa e, ainda que talvez mais a uns Fernandos Pessoas do que a outros, devo a este homem um bom pedaço dos frutos da minha escrita, que até à data são poucos ou nenhuns. Mas enfim, estou a divagar... O que queria dizer a jeito de introduç...

Meditations on The Caretaker's “Everywhere at the End of Time”

I have always been sentimental about memory. Nostalgia was surely one of the first big boy words I learned. And all throughout my life I sort of developed a strong attachment memory, and subsequently to things, which became an obsession almost. I never wanted to see them go, even if they had lost any and all useful purpose, because they still retained a strong emotional attachment to me. I had a memory forever entwined with those old things, so I never wanted to see them go. However, in my late teens I realized I was being stupid, I realized there was no memory within the object itself, it was only in me. So I started to throw a bunch of stuff out, I went from a borderline hoarder to a borderline minimalist, and it was pretty good. I came to the realization that all things were inherently temporary. No matter how long I held on to them, eventually I would lose them one way or another, and if someone or some thing were to forcefully take them from me, I would be heartbroken beyond repai...

10 Atheist Arguments I No Longer Defend

I don't believe in God, I don't follow any religion. And yet, there was a time in my life when I could have said to be more of an atheist than I am now. In some ways I contributed to the new atheism movement, and in fact, for a little while there, Christopher Hitchens was my lord and savior. I greatly admired his extensive literary knowledge, his eloquence, his wit and his bravery. But now I've come to realize his eloquence was his double-edged sword, and because he criticized religion mostly from an ethics standpoint, greatly enhanced by his journalism background, some of the more philosophical questions and their implications were somewhat forgotten, or even dealt with in a little bit of sophistry. And now it's sad that he died... I for one would have loved to know what he would have said in these times when atheism seems to have gained territory, and yet people are deeply craving meaning and direction in their lives. In a nutshell, I think Hitchens versus Peterson wo...

Mármore

Dá-me a mão e vem comigo. Temos tantos lugares para ver. Era assim que escrevia o Bernardo numa página à parte, em pleno contraste com tantas outras páginas soltas e enamoradas de ilustrações coloridas, nas quais eram inteligíveis as suas várias tentativas de idealizar uma rapariga de cabelo castanho-claro, ou talvez vermelho, e com uns olhos grandes que pareciam evocar uma aura de mistério e de aventura, e com os braços estendidos na sua frente, terminando em mãos delicadas que se enlaçavam uma à outra, como se as suas palmas fossem uma concha do mar que guarda uma pérola imperfeita, como se cuidasse de um pássaro caído que tem pena de libertar, como se desafiasse um gesto tímido... Mas tal criação ficava sempre aquém daquilo que o Bernardo visualizava na sua mente. Na verdade não passava sequer de um protótipo mas havia algo ali, uma intenção, uma faísca com tanto potencial para deflagrar no escuro da página branca... se porventura ele fosse melhor artista. E embora a obra carecesse ...

A Synopsis Breakdown of “The Wandering King”

A collection of eight different short stories set in a world where the malignant and omniscient presence of the Wandering King is felt throughout, leading its inhabitants down a spiral of violence, paranoia and madness. That is my book's brief synopsis. And that is just how I like to keep it – brief and vague. I for one find that plot-oriented synopses often ruin the whole reading, or viewing, experience. For example, if you were to describe The Godfather as the story of an aging mafia don who, upon suffering a violent attempt on his life, is forced to transfer control of his crime family to his mild-mannered son, you have already spoiled half the movie. You have given away that Sollozzo is far more dangerous than he appears to be, you have given away that the Don survives the attempt, and you have given away that Michael is the one who will succeed him... Now, it could well be that some stories cannot be, or should not be, captured within a vague description. It could also be t...

Martha, You've Been on My Mind

Perhaps it is the color of this gray rainy sky at the end of spring, this cold but soothing day I hoped would be warm, bright and the end of something I gotta carry on. Or maybe it's that I'm thinking of old days to while away the time until new days come along. Perhaps it's all that or it's nothing at all, but Martha, you've been on my mind. I wouldn't dare to try and find you or even write to you, so instead I write about you, about who I think you are, because in truth I don't really know you. To me you're just a memory, a good memory though, and more importantly, you're the very first crossroads in my life. I had no free will before I saw you and chose what I chose... Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, you would have led me down one, and yet I chose the other. But I never stopped looking down your chosen path for as long as I could, and for a fleeting moment I could have sworn I saw you standing there, and then you just faded, almost as if you ...

In Defense of Ang Lee's “Hulk”

This movie isn't particularly well-liked, that much is no secret. People seem to dislike how odd and bizarrely subdued it is, especially considering the explosive nature of its titular superhero. In a nutshell, people find this movie boring. The criticism I most often hear is that it is essentially a very pretentious take on the Incredible Hulk, an ego-driven attempt to come up with some deep psychological meaning behind a green giant who smashes things. And it's tempting to agree, in a sense it's tempting to brush it off as pretentious and conclude that a film about the Hulk that fails to deliver two action-packed hours is an automatic failure. But of course, I disagree. Even when I was a kid and went into the cinema with my limited knowledge, but great appreciation, of the comics, I never saw the Hulk as a jolly green giant. At one point, the character was seen as a mere physical manifestation of Bruce Banner's repressed anger awakened by gamma radiation, but eventual...

Meditações sobre “Em Busca do Tempo Perdido I – Do Lado de Swann”

Estou a ler Marcel Proust pela segunda vez... Há quem diga que é comum da parte dos seus leitores iniciarem uma segunda leitura logo após a tortura que é a primeira. Quanto a mim posso dizer que seja esse o caso. Quando li este primeiro volume pela primeira vez decidi que não tinha interesse em ler os outros seis, mas depois mudei de ideias e li-os. Mas li quase como que só para poder dizer ter lido. Então o objetivo seria não mais pensar no livro mas isso afigurou-se estranhamente impossível. Surgia uma crescente curiosidade em ler sínteses ou resumos e ficava-me sempre aquela surpresa depois de ler sobre um acontecimento do qual já não tinha memória. Por isso é que me proponho agora a uma segunda e muito, muito mais demorada leitura, para que possa compreender o livro pelo menos o suficiente para dizer qualquer coisa interessante sobre ele. Em relação ao título deste artigo, do qual planeio fazer uma série, decidi usar o termo que usei porque nenhum outro me pareceu mais correto. Nã...

A Minha Interpretação Pessoal de “Sou um Guardador de Rebanhos” de Alberto Caeiro

Em continuação com o meu artigo anterior, comprometo-me agora a uma interpretação de um outro poema do mesmo poeta... mais ou menos. Porque os vários heterónimos pessoanos são todos iguais e diferentes, e diferentes e iguais. Qualquer leitor encontra temas recorrentes nos vários poemas porque de certa forma todos estes poetas se propuseram a resolver as mesmas questões que tanto atormentavam o poeta original. Mas a solução encontrada por Alberto Caeiro é algo diferente na medida em que é quase invejável ao próprio Fernando Pessoa, ainda que talvez não seja invejável aos outros heterónimos. Por outro lado, talvez eu esteja a projetar porque em tempos esta poesia foi deveras invejável para mim. Ao contrário do poema anterior, do qual nem sequer tinha memória de ter lido e apenas sei que o li porque anotei marcas e sublinhados na margem da página, este poema é um que li, que gostei e que apresentei numa aula qualquer num dia que me vem agora à memória como idílico. Mas em típico estilo d...

The Gospel According to Dragline

Yeah, well... sometimes the Gospel can be a real cool book. I'm of course referencing the 1967 classic Cool Hand Luke, one of my favorite films of all time. And, as it is often the case with me, this is a film I didn't really care for upon first viewing. Now I obviously think differently. In many ways, this is a movie made beautiful by it's simplicity. It is made visually striking by its backdrop of natural southern beauty in the US – the everlasting summer, the seemingly abandoned train tracks and the long dirt roads, almost fully deserted were it not for the prisoners working by the fields... It almost gives off the impression that there is no world beyond that road. And maybe as part of that isolation, the story doesn't shy away from grit. It is dirty, grimy and hence, it is real. Some modern movies seem to have an obsession with polishing every pixel of every frame, thus giving off a distinct sense of falsehood. The movie then becomes too colorful, too vibrant, it...

Paulo Seabra

Search This Blog