Why conspiracy theories aren’t harmless fun

[rambaldi]

I wonder what sort of education would be needed to inoculate people against unrealistic conspiracy-thinking?

To quote Schiller:

Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Its actually quite astounding that the Allies managed to hold on to win. The British Generals were woefully out matched by their counterparts on the Prussian side.

I think the German might have been a bit more clever on the tactical level, but history shows they didn't have the ideas to win the war. And they made their own disastrous errors in judgment, like Verdun.

 

[Border Reiver]

Its actually quite astounding that the Allies managed to hold on to win. The British Generals were woefully out matched by their counterparts on the Prussian side.
Douglas Haig was, if nothing else, dogmatic and predictable. Almost every assault had the same plan, artillery barrage then firing ceased and the men went over the top in a line at 7:30 am. At the Somme he threw a huge number of infantry at the German lines. Wave after wave, in shoulder to shoulder lines each line, iirc, 20 yards behind each other, AT A WALK in order to maintain the 20 yard separation. German machine gunners were shocked at the British tactics, they mowed the Brits, Aussies, Canadians down in the tens of thousands.
Haig did not like machine guns. Not because they were chewing through his troops, but because if he put too many of them in the hands of his own troops they might lose their offensive spirit. He thought much more highly of mounted cavalry because nothing drove fear into the enemy that the thought "of cold steel", the mounted soldier's sword.

While British staff officers stayed well back of the lines using runners to deliver orders. Orders that were often woefully outdated by the time they got there. Its one thing to order a force to flank right, its quite another if the order to do so gets there when that force consists now only of a handful of men still walking upright.
German staff officers OTOH were up front directing battle in real time.

The Germans tried one massive assault late in the war to try and break the back of the British before the Americans entered the war. The lines held, barely.

The war ended when the Prussian politicians were faced with their population starving and the Americans now throwing in another million men. The Prussian army was still in good shape and was far from beaten. German soldiers and officers could be forgiven if it seemed to them that they had been betrayed by their political leaders.
The little Corporal took advantage of that sentiment a decade later.

As for Herr Hitler's mustache. He trimmed back that cookie duster, from what I understand, after having been gassed and finding that the hair kept his mask from fitting properly.

This is also an example of a misperception of history (ie. the British and Commonwealth armies being "lions lead by donkeys"). Haig isn't going to go down as a brilliant military commander, but was not the semi-mindless butcher of his troops as portrayed quite often in popular history (someone needsed to be blamed for all the British death and Haig was the top guy for a good chunk of the war).

Haig and many other generals, including the Germans found themselves in a war of a sort that they were completely unprepared doctrinally to fight. It was essentially a seige, given that the trenches went from Switzerland to the Channel, leaving little to no room from brilliant tactical manouveres. None of the wars previously fought had used that much artillery before in essentially a confined space and the damage that those shells could do to the landscape prevented a lot of dynamic action (ie. men walked into battle because they could not run). The British were open to new ideas (tanks, trench raids, the creeping barrage, etc) but did not exactly have the luxury of time to test the new theories to see which worked best before trying them out.

As to Haig's distrust of the machine gun, please remember that when the war began a Britsh (and Commonwealth) infantry battalion generally had 2 Vickers HMGs, by war's end they had at least 32 and were considering doubling that - not even considering the specialist machine gun battalions that were on the ORBAT.

As to the end of the war, that was partially correct. The German army was beaten and retreating through Belguim and norther France when the truce was called - it just hadn't gotten back to Germany yet, and the southern flank was secure, but the Germans could not have sustained military action against the West much longer - Austro Hungary was collapsing, Turkey was as well, and garrisoning the Ukraine, and Romania was a drain on military resources.

 

[Allen773]

Nazism was build around the "The non-Aryans are out to get us!" conspiracy theory.

That's what I've argued before. Agreed!

 

[Ladewig]

Interesting article here. A few short excerpts below:

snip:


snip:


snip:


Full article: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/26/comment-why-conspiracy-theories-arent-harmless-fun

Id love to read the article, but I just get an endless loading and reloading of the page.

Does anyone in the article actually argue that CTs are harmless, because I have never heard that claim before.

 

[dudalb]

This is also an example of a misperception of history (ie. the British and Commonwealth armies being "lions lead by donkeys"). Haig isn't going to go down as a brilliant military commander, but was not the semi-mindless butcher of his troops as portrayed quite often in popular history (someone needsed to be blamed for all the British death and Haig was the top guy for a good chunk of the war).

Haig and many other generals, including the Germans found themselves in a war of a sort that they were completely unprepared doctrinally to fight. It was essentially a seige, given that the trenches went from Switzerland to the Channel, leaving little to no room from brilliant tactical manouveres. None of the wars previously fought had used that much artillery before in essentially a confined space and the damage that those shells could do to the landscape prevented a lot of dynamic action (ie. men walked into battle because they could not run). The British were open to new ideas (tanks, trench raids, the creeping barrage, etc) but did not exactly have the luxury of time to test the new theories to see which worked best before trying them out.

As to Haig's distrust of the machine gun, please remember that when the war began a Britsh (and Commonwealth) infantry battalion generally had 2 Vickers HMGs, by war's end they had at least 32 and were considering doubling that - not even considering the specialist machine gun battalions that were on the ORBAT.

As to the end of the war, that was partially correct. The German army was beaten and retreating through Belguim and norther France when the truce was called - it just hadn't gotten back to Germany yet, and the southern flank was secure, but the Germans could not have sustained military action against the West much longer - Austro Hungary was collapsing, Turkey was as well, and garrisoning the Ukraine, and Romania was a drain on military resources.

Haig was indeed scapegoated for the horrendous British casualaties. And Lloyd George was one of the biggest scapegoaters,blaming Hiag for just about everything that went wrong n the war,while absoslving himself as PM of any respoinsibility.
Haig was not a brilliant general by any reach of the mind, but the he was not the total nicommpoop of popular image (the film "OH,What A Lovely War" being a good example).An idiot would not have given the support and resources to Tanks that Haig did
I think Haig was too slow to relize when an offensive had failed and should have called off both the Somme and Paschaendael much earlier. Haig always felt the ,in the case of the Somme, he had to start the offensive long before he was really ready to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun;that might be excuse making but should be taken into consideration.
One thing which fascinates me is why ,in 1917 the French Army's morale pretty much collapased with the Mutinys of 1917 but nothing close to that ever happened to the British armies,despite similiar casualty levels.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is also an example of a misperception of history (ie. the British and Commonwealth armies being "lions lead by donkeys"). Haig isn't going to go down as a brilliant military commander, but was not the semi-mindless butcher of his troops as portrayed quite often in popular history (someone needsed to be blamed for all the British death and Haig was the top guy for a good chunk of the war).

Haig and many other generals, including the Germans found themselves in a war of a sort that they were completely unprepared doctrinally to fight. It was essentially a seige, given that the trenches went from Switzerland to the Channel, leaving little to no room from brilliant tactical manouveres. None of the wars previously fought had used that much artillery before in essentially a confined space and the damage that those shells could do to the landscape prevented a lot of dynamic action (ie. men walked into battle because they could not run). The British were open to new ideas (tanks, trench raids, the creeping barrage, etc) but did not exactly have the luxury of time to test the new theories to see which worked best before trying them out.

As to Haig's distrust of the machine gun, please remember that when the war began a Britsh (and Commonwealth) infantry battalion generally had 2 Vickers HMGs, by war's end they had at least 32 and were considering doubling that - not even considering the specialist machine gun battalions that were on the ORBAT.

As to the end of the war, that was partially correct. The German army was beaten and retreating through Belguim and norther France when the truce was called - it just hadn't gotten back to Germany yet, and the southern flank was secure, but the Germans could not have sustained military action against the West much longer - Austro Hungary was collapsing, Turkey was as well, and garrisoning the Ukraine, and Romania was a drain on military resources.

I will bow to your certainly more encyclopedic knowledge. I half expected it after I hit post.

My understanding most recently comes from the book " Into the Silence". First few chapters deal with the war experiences of a few of the men who tackled Everest. The main topic is those climbing expeditions.

 

[Bubba]

Personally, I think ardent believers in the Official Story do as much harm in that they see little no need to question the Official Narrative as they go blithely on their merry way trusting the people who hold power not to abuse such power.

Fundamentalist mindsets have a common need to eliminate uncertainties and ambiguities by sharply defining grey areas into black or white/all or nothing perceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure
Cognitive closure (psychology), the human desire to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally)

Valid points, IMO.

3. This strawman... It is wheeled out by CT believers to somehow demonstrate that anyone who does not buy in to their latest ridiculous piece of paranoid fiction is a compliant and naive moron, and as such is a patronising and unjustified caricature of non-believers. .

That seems to twist what jakesteele said. This is what he said:

Personally, I think ardent believers in the Official Story do as much harm...

Big difference between 'ardent believers' and 'anyone who does not buy in'

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Talking about two different groups there.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
Personally, I think ardent believers in the Official Story do as much harm in that they see little no need to question the Official Narrative as they go blithely on their merry way trusting the people who hold power not to abuse such power.

Fundamentalist mindsets have a common need to eliminate uncertainties and ambiguities by sharply defining grey areas into black or white/all or nothing perceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure
Cognitive closure (psychology), the human desire to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally)

Valid points, IMO.

3. This strawman... It is wheeled out by CT believers to somehow demonstrate that anyone who does not buy in to their latest ridiculous piece of paranoid fiction is a compliant and naive moron, and as such is a patronising and unjustified caricature of non-believers.

That seems to twist what jakesteele said. This is what he said:

Personally, I think ardent believers in the Official Story do as much harm...

Big difference between 'ardent believers' and 'anyone who does not buy in'

Sorry but what jakesteele wrote is pure dog whistle stuff. To many, many CT believers anyone who disagrees with their fantasies is an "ardent believer" in the "official" version. The very use of terms like "official version" and "official narrative" are part and parcel of this rhetorical strategy. You see by definition to many, many CT all those who believe the often entirely mythical notion of an "official" version, narrative are "ardent" believers who just trust the "official" narrative, version. That people may come to believe the "official" version, narrative out of their own research and analysis and not out of mindless trust of government is alien to many, many Ct believers.

The very vocabulary used indicates typical CT thinking about those who have concluded that CT thinking about X is bogus.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Big difference between 'ardent believers' and 'anyone who does not buy in'

Really? Because in my dealings with CT believers, I have seen no such distinction. Part of the root cause of these beliefs, IMHO, is a desire to simplify a complicated world. In this weltanschauung there is no room for shades of belief: it's all or nothing. I refer you to the posts of miragememories, clayton moore (how I miss him!), jihad jane or Jango for examples of this kind of viewpoint. You either take on board every conspiracy going, or you blindly accept the truth of every utterance from every government everywhere.
As jakesteele seems to have declined the challenge, perhaps you would like to accept my request to demonstrate the existence of these 'ardent believers', either on this forum, or from surveys of a nation of your choice?

 

[Stone]

That people may come to believe the "official" version, narrative out of their own research and analysis and not out of mindless trust of government is alien to many, many Ct believers.

That actually describes to a T the mindless rejection of professional fully secular historians by the Jesus myther crowd, much like creationists ignoring professional scientists. In addition, I've encountered several Jesus mythers whose "dog whistles" are little different from hate speech in their irrational demonizing of all of academe.

It was academe who eventually toppled the hegemony of the church! Duh.

I now view both creationism and mytherism as reflecting quintessential conspiracy-theory-think.

Stone

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nazism was build around the "The non-Aryans are out to get us!" conspiracy theory.

Yes, propaganda can be very damaging indeed. Not sure most CTs meet the level of serious propaganda backed by a government.

However, ISIS propaganda I do believe meets that danger level. The Great Satan, other religions are evil and so on looks like a CT in all its elements.

 

[sts60]

Really? Because in my dealings with CT believers, I have seen no such distinction. Part of the root cause of these beliefs, IMHO, is a desire to simplify a complicated world. In this weltanschauung there is no room for shades of belief: it's all or nothing. I refer you to the posts of miragememories, clayton moore (how I miss him!), jihad jane or Jango for examples of this kind of viewpoint. You either take on board every conspiracy going, or you blindly accept the truth of every utterance from every government everywhere...

To be fair, Jango has specifically disavowed some conspiracies; the Apollo "hoax", for example. Yes, he believes the U.S. government's record of the lunar landings. So there are counterexamples, although the potato chip paradigm ("you can't eat just one") is pretty widespread among conspiracists.

 

[Joey McGee]

Anyone who knows anything about terrorism knows that most jihadis are so full of conspiracy theories it makes Alex Jones look like a moderate. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was believed to be real by bin Laden. This is deadly serious stuff.

 

[Robert Harris]

We are all conspiracy theorists, aren't we?

Does anyone here doubt that an American president conspired with burglars to break into his political adversaries' headquarters?

Does anyone doubt that Muslim terrorists conspired to destroy the twin towers?

Does anyone doubt that there was a secret conspiracy among members of the German government, to murder millions of Jews and members of other minorities?

Does anyone doubt that terrorists and other criminals have conspired thousands of times to commit crimes?

A conspiracy is nothing more than a crime carried out by more than a single perpetrator. Sane individuals believe in many more conspiracies than they reject.

It is absurd to dismiss an alleged conspiracy, solely on the grounds that it is a conspiracy. Each case needs to be evaluated objectively and based entirely on the facts and evidence.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We are all conspiracy theorists, aren't we?

Does anyone here doubt that an American president conspired with burglars to break into his political adversaries' headquarters?

Does anyone doubt that Muslim terrorists conspired to destroy the twin towers?

Does anyone doubt that there was a secret conspiracy among members of the German government, to murder millions of Jews and members of other minorities?

Does anyone doubt that terrorists and other criminals have conspired thousands of times to commit crimes?

A conspiracy is nothing more than a crime carried out by more than a single perpetrator. Sane individuals believe in many more conspiracies than they reject.

It is absurd to dismiss an alleged conspiracy, solely on the grounds that it is a conspiracy. Each case needs to be evaluated objectively and based entirely on the facts and evidence.

You should read the thread.

 

[Rincewind]

This is also an example of a misperception of history (ie. the British and Commonwealth armies being "lions lead by donkeys"). Haig isn't going to go down as a brilliant military commander, but was not the semi-mindless butcher of his troops as portrayed quite often in popular history (someone needsed to be blamed for all the British death and Haig was the top guy for a good chunk of the war).

Haig and many other generals, including the Germans found themselves in a war of a sort that they were completely unprepared doctrinally to fight. It was essentially a seige, given that the trenches went from Switzerland to the Channel, leaving little to no room from brilliant tactical manouveres. None of the wars previously fought had used that much artillery before in essentially a confined space and the damage that those shells could do to the landscape prevented a lot of dynamic action (ie. men walked into battle because they could not run). The British were open to new ideas (tanks, trench raids, the creeping barrage, etc) but did not exactly have the luxury of time to test the new theories to see which worked best before trying them out.

As to Haig's distrust of the machine gun, please remember that when the war began a Britsh (and Commonwealth) infantry battalion generally had 2 Vickers HMGs, by war's end they had at least 32 and were considering doubling that - not even considering the specialist machine gun battalions that were on the ORBAT.

As to the end of the war, that was partially correct. The German army was beaten and retreating through Belguim and norther France when the truce was called - it just hadn't gotten back to Germany yet, and the southern flank was secure, but the Germans could not have sustained military action against the West much longer - Austro Hungary was collapsing, Turkey was as well, and garrisoning the Ukraine, and Romania was a drain on military resources.

I would add to this the fact that ALL the main armies in 1914 only had a couple of machine guns per battalion at best.

 

[Robert Harris]

You should read the thread.

I did read it - every post.

None of that changes the fact that we are all conspiracy theorists who believe far more conspiracies than we reject.

In many cases, we are not denying conspiracy. We are only arguing about which conspiracy is correct.

You and I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy carried out by Muslim jihadists, don't we? "truthers" believe it was a conspiracy by the US government - our conspiracy vs. theirs.

Holocaust deniers might argue that we are the conspiracists - claiming that the German government secretly conspired to kill millions of Jews.

I can give you countless other examples.

The simple fact is, that it is outrageously wrong, to dismiss a theory, solely because it suggests a conspiracy. It always boils down to one explanation vs. another.

The only honest way to address theories - conspiratorial or otherwise, is to deal with the relevant facts and evidence. If a theory seems utterly ridiculous to us, then it should be quite easy to refute it, legitimately.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you read the thread you'd know that there's a distinction between "conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories." We are NOT all conspiracy theorist, some of us are sane.