Conspiracy Theories

[simonineaston]

Channel 4 to record program about Lucy Letby’s trial. Channel 4 aired the drama about Bates. Therefore it follows that LL must be innocent. How’s that for a conspiracy theory...?
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/cha ... ocumentary

[simonineaston]

For those interested in the background to the Letby case, the New Yorker article which some claim triggered the current media interest and suggestions of a miscarriage of justice, is available here:
https://t.co/8BiW1nsBvS

[Jdsk]

The Moderators have just removed some comments which IMHO included a conspiracy theory. But it was a conspiracy theory that put others at risk of harm. That second factor is very important in deciding on the appropriate action.

Jonathan

[PDQ Mobile]

The Moderators have just removed some comments which IMHO included a conspiracy theory. But it was a conspiracy theory that put others at risk of harm. That second factor is very important in deciding on the appropriate action.

Jonathan

What Is your level of competence to decide this?
And to thank the Mods?
Do you have any other professional interests in certain fields?

Ps.
I am not Moderated simply curious about "facts"

[[XAP]Bob]

If I suggest that curing the common cold was as easy an injecting bleach - would that pose a risk to people?

Who are you to decide on "facts".

Come on...

[Jdsk]

I'm just a forum participant. As far as I know that allows me to express opinions and to thank people, including Moderators.

Jonathan

[PDQ Mobile]

If I suggest that curing the common cold was as easy an injecting bleach - would that pose a risk to people?

Who are you to decide on "facts".

Come on...

One cannot even begin to make judgements unless the source declares all interests.

[PDQ Mobile]

I'm just a forum participant. As far as I know that allows me to express opinions and to thank people, including Moderators.

Jonathan

Just like me then!

[[XAP]Bob]

If I suggest that curing the common cold was as easy an injecting bleach - would that pose a risk to people?

One cannot even begin to make judgements unless the source declares all interests.

It doesn't need a judgement - it's clearly a stupid, and dangerous, idea that poses risk to people.

This is part of the problem. It doesn't take a genius to know that injecting bleach is a bad idea, yet media outlets will search high and low for some crackpot who thinks it's a great idea for "balance" in reporting.

[PDQ Mobile]

If I suggest that curing the common cold was as easy an injecting bleach - would that pose a risk to people?

One cannot even begin to make judgements unless the source declares all interests.

It doesn't need a judgement - it's clearly a stupid, and dangerous, idea that poses risk to people.

This is part of the problem. It doesn't take a genius to know that injecting bleach is a bad idea, yet media outlets will search high and low for some crackpot who thinks it's a great idea for "balance" in reporting.

Did someone suggest that on here?
And that was what was moderated?
Surely debunked enough to avoid risk?

I was more referring to complex issues.

On those things I prefer to decide for myself rather than have things removed by the requests of someone who has just stated they have no more competence than yours truly.
Best leave it.

[Psamathe]

One cannot even begin to make judgements unless the source declares all interests.

It doesn't need a judgement - it's clearly a stupid, and dangerous, idea that poses risk to people.

This is part of the problem. It doesn't take a genius to know that injecting bleach is a bad idea, yet media outlets will search high and low for some crackpot who thinks it's a great idea for "balance" in reporting.

Did someone suggest that on here?
And that was what was moderated?
Surely debunked enough to avoid risk?

I was more referring to complex issues.

On those things I prefer to decide for myself rather than have things removed by the requests of someone who has just stated they have no more competence than yours truly.
Best leave it.

I don't know what the moderated post(s) were saying but there have been historic examples of anti-vaccination posts based around Government conspiracies (withholding risks not the Bill Gates trackers stupidity).

I believe one of the challenges on the internet these days is how some (not suggesting anybody specific) will read lots of evidential based information but for some unknown reason reject them in favour of believing and following the daft idea. One sees it all the time (just look at the US or Southport) for some common sense deserts them when the read something they want to believe. So I guess the forum has to strike a balance to avoid becoming a perpetrator of dangerous misinformation vs excessively restrictive discussion.

Ian

[re_cycler]

I believe one of the challenges on the internet these days is how some (not suggesting anybody specific) will read lots of evidential based information but for some unknown reason reject them in favour of believing and following the daft idea. One sees it all the time (just look at the US or Southport) for some common sense deserts them when the read something they want to believe. So I guess the forum has to strike a balance to avoid becoming a perpetrator of dangerous misinformation vs excessively restrictive discussion.

Ian

Don't conspiracies normally work by casting evidence based information as part of the cover-up ?

[[XAP]Bob]

One cannot even begin to make judgements unless the source declares all interests.

It doesn't need a judgement - it's clearly a stupid, and dangerous, idea that poses risk to people.

This is part of the problem. It doesn't take a genius to know that injecting bleach is a bad idea, yet media outlets will search high and low for some crackpot who thinks it's a great idea for "balance" in reporting.

Did someone suggest that on here?
And that was what was moderated?
Surely debunked enough to avoid risk?

It's one where I don't think any but the most ardent MAGA supporters would have any issue with saying it's obviously wrong.
But there are other things which are wrong - and which people claim to be true. Take for example the confident assertion that the Southport attacks were carried out by a small boat asylum seeker with a muslim sounding name.
That simple, but obviously false, "fact" was circulated and resulted in some pretty horrific terror attacks.

I was more referring to complex issues.
On those things I prefer to decide for myself rather than have things removed by the requests of someone who has just stated they have no more competence than yours truly.

Deciding things for yourself is not a matter of facts though - it's for opinions.

[Nearholmer]

read lots of evidential based information but for some unknown reason reject them in favour of believing and following the daft idea

The reasons why people often prefer lies to truths are to some degree understood, and are certainly mercilessly exploited by the various sorts of misinformation peddlers (charlatans; destabilisation agents; advertising executives; propagandists; shock-jock journos; unscrupulous politicians; nutters; etc), who have either a trained or llinstinctive grasp of what makes a good lie.

If a lie makes people feel chosen, important, or privy to secrets, it does pretty well; if it explains to them in an easy form, ideally with a guilty party, why their life is not as they wish it was, it does pretty well; if it confirms their existing beliefs, it is onto a winner; if it gives a simple, easy to assimilate explanation, rather than a horribly complicated one, it’s got a head start; if it’s just more interesting, sexy, colourful than a dull truth, it will beat the truth; if it can be conveyed easily in a cartoonish picture, it’s a super-spreader, transcending language boundaries; if it offers a quick fix to something that really bugs people, they’ll love it, etc.

Cugel might well talk of this in terms of characteristics that make a meme highly viable.

One that really intrigues me, because it’s so entirely insane, so totally counter to well-established, easily-checkable facts, but is still quite popular with a certain demographic, is the “mud flood” belief, which goes with “the tartarian empire” (Wikipedia will tell you what they are). I think that particular one rolls-on because it makes dull lives more interesting, by suggesting that those who believe are privy to a secret being kept from the entire population of the globe, so are therefore special/chosen ones.

People will go a long way to avoid the truth, because it’s often dull, challenging, or simply unsatisfying. Oh, and people hate ambiguity, nuance, and, uncertainty; uncertainty really hurts!

[Biospace]

It doesn't need a judgement - it's clearly a stupid, and dangerous, idea that poses risk to people.

This is part of the problem. It doesn't take a genius to know that injecting bleach is a bad idea, yet media outlets will search high and low for some crackpot who thinks it's a great idea for "balance" in reporting.

Did someone suggest that on here?
And that was what was moderated?
Surely debunked enough to avoid risk?

I was more referring to complex issues.

On those things I prefer to decide for myself rather than have things removed by the requests of someone who has just stated they have no more competence than yours truly.
Best leave it.

There were excited responses talking about conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers and more which appeared quite out of sync with the tenor of the conversation. As you see, bleach has been introduced. Clearly sensitivities run high.

All it required for this was my mention that for me, the word "vaccine" represents a medical product which is taken once, possibly twice, to confer decades of immunity. The efficacy estimates for the annual 'flu jab were listed, also.

If this is seen as a conspiracy theory by some, I wish them well.

Clearly the medical establishment alter meanings of some terminology which is their prerogative - I am clearly behind the times but choose to make up my own mind. Is it now something of a crime to use terminology how it was once used?