MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 89, 90, 91 ... 299, 300, 301  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, it is interesting that Britain and the USA might end up benefiting from the Skripal poisoning. Applying cui bono can only be done to the primary event. Conspiracy theorists also benefit but I think that would be a quaternary effect. Unless of course....
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I reckon its difficult to get agents to defect to you....if you then (having encouraged them) kill them in the national interest. On the other hand .....if you. are the motherland and... kill them after they defected away from the motherland....it sort of sends a signal to other agents....

Damn I haven't analysed the double bluff...
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
You keep on making the same, old error. A 'conspiracy' is a crime. A 'conspiracy theory' is a sociological phenomenon. Until you get that distinction clear in your mind, you will make no progress.

I understand this difference entirely. It's precisely this which I'm railing against.

A 'conspiracy' is a crime.


Therefore a conspiracy theory is a theory about a crime (a crime involving conspiracy of some sort that is).

A 'conspiracy theory' is a sociological phenomenon.


Conspiracy theory in inverted commas is. However, this entire phenomenon stems from the term "conspiracy theorist" being used in a pejorative sense. It's just a label. It's also an entirely subjective label, so completely useless as any sort of definition.

I have no interest in "conspiracy theory" as a sociological phenomenon or label. My only interest in that aspect of it comes from my desire to counter the label when it's used against people - and to deconstruct why they the accusers are using it.

The term is only used in its pejorative sense by people who aren't interested in a genuine debate about the topic the other person is putting forward.

Your experience of the terms usage in this sense should tell you this. In fact, I recall Kate Wiles or one of her followers using this term or similar on Twitter re Remarkable Forgeries. It's obvious that this is a mental reflex to avoid an evidence or logic based discussion.

The label "conspiracy theorist" is just a tool of the lazy, or the sophisticate.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Khordokovsky: ... the criminal gang in the Kremlin can now manipulate Putin and we have seen this demonstrated on a number of occasions ...
[Oh good, at last, something we can judge for ourselves.]
Emily Maitlis (interrupts): What can Britain do etc etc
One weeps at the idiocy of these Newsnight interviewers (except St Evan of course).
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley reckons that in your Liberal Democracies, conspiracy theory is a mental health problem.

Where there are more despotic forms of government it is at the least a respectable form of political science.

In the analysis of terrorism it is.....
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is fascinatingly true to judge by Russian spokespersons, whether TV anchormen, babushkas in the street or Foreign Minister Lavrov. They really seem to believe these things with a Scottian relish.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Likewise, there are people sat in the UK, watching the western media, which is presenting the UK claim as true - the alternative is a "conspiracy theory". / However, there are people sat in Russia, watching Russian media, which is presenting the Russia claim as true - the alternative is likewise considered a conspiracy theory.

How do you decide who is right? And what do you base this on?

We are AE-ists, we must make an effort to see what others cannot see. The first assumption to be examined is that somebody actually poisoned Skripal. This crucial first step can get overlooked in this kind of furore -- as per Kennedy actually dying because one of the security guards’ gun discharged. In this case it cannot be absolutely ruled out, what with Porton being just up the road, that it was all a ghastly accident or even a bizarre suicide pact. So let’s rule them out.

But that does not mean it was either the Russians or the British. I am surprised, since it is a runner, that nobody has put forward the idea of a third country doing it, with the (apparently very successful) idea of putting Britain and Russia in an antagonistic uproar. This would include (whether states or rogue elements within the states) the USA, China, Assad, Iran, North Korea. So let’s rule them out.

Rationally, you really do have to decide between Britain and Russia with the sub-decision of state policy vs rogue elements. Now we can answer Scotty’s question. But only if we eschew conspiracy theory and since, as Scotty correctly points out, there really was a conspiracy to murder Skripal and there really are conspiracy theories to explain the conspiracy, this is not entirely straightforward. But I expect we'll manage.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is much better thinking and much more to my taste. Especially the second paragraph..

I am surprised, since it is a runner, that nobody has put forward the idea of a third country doing it


Even if we accept the official UK version of the story and take it on face value. We have a situation where a murder has took place, carried out by a person or persons.

We have no idea who this person is. Not even an image or description.

We don't know how or when he entered the country, or how he left. Presumably we don't even know if he has left. So we could theoretically still have a murderer wandering around the country.

The fact that Putin (or whoever) can send someone in and out to commit a murder so easily suggests our defences and intelligence gathering isn't particularly great. So why pick a fight with Russia when we're already in such a vulnerable position. This is pretty dumb in my opinion.

It would make much more sense to bide our time, fix our defences, then act from a position of strength.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Emily Maitlis (interrupts): What can Britain do etc etc
One weeps at the idiocy of these Newsnight interviewers (except St Evan of course).


I was watching Newsnight last night and got the impression that they still believe that Russia is a communist state. That's the only explanation for the criticism of Corbyn for being on the side of the Russians.

Russia is really an Orthodox Nationalist country now.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
Russia is really an Orthodox [Christian] Nationalist country now.


Right! That's why the elites despise Russia so much!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What tosh you two talk.

1. They were not assuming that Russia is still a communist country, they were correctly assuming that Corbyn (and his acolyte who was being interviewed) still assume that Russia is to be generally supported because the hard left in Britain so hates America.

2. The elites, as Ishmael calls them (he means the liberal intelligentsia), despise Russia for being a Godawful country with a Godawful foreign policy.

I hasten to add this is not my view, I am extremely pro-Russia, and have supported their foreign policy through Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. I also support Putin, as I support the Chinese bloke, because they're doing a good(ish) job with countries that cannot (presently) be ruled in any other way.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Conspiracy theory in inverted commas is. However, this entire phenomenon stems from the term "conspiracy theorist" being used in a pejorative sense. It's just a label. It's also an entirely subjective label, so completely useless as any sort of definition.

Surely it has to be a pejorative label unless and until a conspiracy theory turns out to be true. It's like alien visitations until somebody produces an actual outaspace artefact.

I have no interest in "conspiracy theory" as a sociological phenomenon or label. My only interest in that aspect of it comes from my desire to counter the label when it's used against people - and to deconstruct why they the accusers are using it.

Why people are called 'conspiracy theorists' when they manifestly are not is another interesting sociological phenomenon.

The term is only used in its pejorative sense by people who aren't interested in a genuine debate about the topic the other person is putting forward. Your experience of the terms usage in this sense should tell you this. In fact, I recall Kate Wiles or one of her followers using this term or similar on Twitter re Remarkable Forgeries. It's obvious that this is a mental reflex to avoid an evidence or logic based discussion.

In their defence I was putting forward a conspiracy theory.

The label "conspiracy theorist" is just a tool of the lazy, or the sophisticate.

'Careful ignoral' is the AE term. I don't think Kate Wiles or any of her followers could reasonably be accused of being either lazy or sophisticated.

Even if we accept the official UK version of the story and take it on face value. We have a situation where a murder has took place, carried out by a person or persons.

Correct.

We have no idea who this person is. Not even an image or description.

Correct.

We don't know how or when he entered the country, or how he left. Presumably we don't even know if he has left. So we could theoretically still have a murderer wandering around the country.

Correct.

The fact that Putin (or whoever) can send someone in and out to commit a murder so easily suggests our defences and intelligence gathering isn't particularly great.

Doesn't follow. I doubt if any country save perhaps North Korea could keep a lone assassin out.

So why pick a fight with Russia when we're already in such a vulnerable position. This is pretty dumb in my opinion.

We are not picking a fight with Russia, we are assuming they have picked a fight with us.

It would make much more sense to bide our time, fix our defences, then act from a position of strength.

When would that be? Manning the border barricades or doubling our defence expenditure (or whatever it is you are proposing) seems disproportionate to stop a few Russkies being bumped off. Which reminds me, this is all a storm in a teacup compared to what we are doing to Russia on a daily basis by way of sanctions (and which are themselves but a storm in a teapot).
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Surely it has to be a pejorative label unless and until a conspiracy theory turns out to be true. It's like alien visitations until somebody produces an actual outaspace artefact.

You're probably technically correct here, I think. However, if people dismiss something as a "conspiracy theory" without seriously looking into it, then even if there is evidence there to support it they'll never see it.

Also the way it's used as a slur or insult adds something to the term that isn't there in the plain English. Any theory, even though unproven, can be deemed reasonable or unreasonable by a person. The way the term is now used though implies that all conspiracy theories are unreasonable. I guess this is my main gripe.

Also when a conspiracy theory is proven it tends to get retrospectively branded as not being a "proper" conspiracy theory.

A minor conspiracy theory was proven recently actually. There were claims that Twitter was "shadow banning" people. Shadow banning is what happens when you get censored but you can't tell you've been censored. So for example, you post a comment on Twitter, it appears in your timeline and maybe even in the timelines of your friends, however the rest of the Internet can't see it. So you think you're posting something the world can potentially see, but it's in fact hidden from everyone apart from you and your near associates. Now there were people complaining that this was happening, but they were dismissed as "conspiracy theorists". Obviously you're going to look a little crazy if you're claiming that Twitter are hiding your Tweets from everyone else even though you can see them yourself on your own timeline. However, eventually people who'd worked for Twitter blew the whistle and admitted they'd been doing it. They were mainly doing it to Trump supporters though so the mainstream media weren't too bothered.

Again, this may not meet another person's definition of a true conspiracy theory. To me it meets the basic definition of the term though.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Doesn't follow. I doubt if any country save perhaps North Korea could keep a lone assassin out.

You're right here as well I suppose. I guess there isn't a great deal more we could do come to think of it. I do find the lack of focus on the practicalities of this crime a little bizarre though. And the sheer lack of actual information. I've given up trying to work it all out for the time being though. So I've returned to the fence. If Stephen Kinnock succeeds in getting the World Cup postponed though I'll move my sympathies back to the Russian side of the argument pretty quickly.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Surely it has to be a pejorative label unless and until a conspiracy theory turns out to be true. It's like alien visitations until somebody produces an actual outaspace artefact.

You're probably technically correct here, I think

This is like a Christian saying to an atheist, “You’re probably technically correct.” It is very much easier (though admittedly shattering in personal terms) just to become an atheist.

However, if people dismiss something as a "conspiracy theory" without seriously looking into it, then even if there is evidence there to support it they'll never see it.

This is like a Christian saying, “I know God doesn’t exist but because a lot of people are nasty to Christians I think I shall carry on being a Christian.”

Also the way it's used as a slur or insult adds something to the term that isn't there in the plain English. Any theory, even though unproven, can be deemed reasonable or unreasonable by a person. The way the term is now used though implies that all conspiracy theories are unreasonable. I guess this is my main gripe.

Since you have tacitly admitted you no longer believe in God it would appear to be your only remaining gripe.

Also when a conspiracy theory is proven it tends to get retrospectively branded as not being a "proper" conspiracy theory.

Uh-oh, backsliding. Please provide a list of these since it means God exists once more. Well, all right, just one. Oh, I see you have ...

A minor conspiracy theory was proven recently actually. There were claims that Twitter was "shadow banning" people. etc etc

God remains unexistent. This is a conspiracy, Scottie, that has been exposed. It happens a hundred times a day. There are even laws against it. There's no need for you (or us) to get involved since, as you have pointed out, zillions of people are already involved, the matter has been satisfactorily resolved and the miscreants sent to gaol (or whatever).

Again, this may not meet another person's definition of a true conspiracy theory. To me it meets the basic definition of the term though.

This is called ‘agnosticism’ and is disallowed under AE rules (unless it is a unique position). If it doesn’t look like a duck and it doesn’t quack like a duck it isn’t a duck no matter how many people are saying it is.

If Stephen Kinnock succeeds in getting the World Cup postponed though I'll move my sympathies back to the Russian side of the argument pretty quickly.

AE-ists do not have sympathies.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 89, 90, 91 ... 299, 300, 301  Next

Jump to:  
Page 90 of 301

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group