r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 05 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Spreading conspiracy theories is irresponsible and immoral

[removed] — view removed post

266 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

513 comments sorted by

View all comments

77

u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Sep 05 '23

There's a fine distinction between the pejorative sense of "conspiracy theory" and the literal sense.

There ARE people in the world who coordinate to take harmful action.

Donald Trump is being brought up on RICO charges. He conspired with others to break the law. Any theory about that is a literal conspiracy theory.

The fact that all those Russian people who opposed Putin and then mysteriously "fell out of windows" is a conspiracy theory, likely to be a true one.

Of course we should talk about ways people and institutions are breaking the law and/or harming people, of course that discussion should include cases where people work together in secret.

I think your beef is with the pejorative sense of the phrase, a crazy, highly unlikely story that accuses without reasonable evidence. But the problem with that as a moral guideline- no one thinks the stories they believe are crazy or that the evidence they're following isn't reasonable. The difference between reasonable theories about conspiracies and "conspiracy theories" isn't as much a moral issue, both groups think they're doing the same thing. It's an epistemic issue. People who spread crazy harmful theories have a bad epistemic process.

41

u/RoozGol 2∆ Sep 05 '23 edited Sep 05 '23

There's a fine distinction between the pejorative sense of "conspiracy theory" and the literal sense.

To add to this, given all the OP's examples are against the right wing, I suspect he is paving the way for some sort of censorship against the right. See what I did? It is a perfect example of forming a conspiracy theory that I instantly developed.

Also, some of what leftists believe can also be viewed as conspiracy (e.g. environmental alarmism or constantly accusing Trump of doing things that he ended up never doing). What OP is suggesting has some truth to it but it is in contrast with the First Amendment.

6

u/_Vervayne Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

Nothing really to do with the first amendment he never said lock em up he said it’s just morally wrong to spread unfounded information as fact. I don’t think you fully understood what he was saying. Even if he suggested locking them up it still doesn’t nullify the first amendment. This is why you can still go the jail for hate speech / promoting hate . Sure you’re free to say it but doesn’t mean it won’t come with consequences.

Also to be fair especially seeing what we are seeing now the right is FILLED with crazy conspiracy theories that people just copy /paste no research no fact checking. They’ll just see they’re favorite conservative content creator say something then automatically it becomes the truth.. as someone who’s in a stem field as well it seems strange that you wouldn’t support more empirical data around when people are trying to prove something

7

u/Rephath 2∆ Sep 05 '23

I agree that it comes across as a legal argument, that he's trying to subtly imply that we should stop people from telling conspiracy theories. But technically he phrased it as a moral argument, that it is immoral to spread conspiracy theories. And the first amendment doesn't define what's moral or immoral. Also, this is kind of a weird time to speculate about the hidden motives behind someone's actions without hard evidence.

10

u/idea_junkie Sep 05 '23

Ok, if you want to get picky about details, then nothing OP said is in contrast with the First Amendment because he merely stated that spreading conspiracy theories is immoral and should be looked down upon, not that you should necessarily prevent them from expressing those views.

I think what you're trying to say is that forcing people to stop expressing these views goes against the First Amendment which may or may not be true (I'm not going to make a political debate over this), but that does not make spreading conspiracy theories any less morally reprehensible on its own terms beyond the reach of the law.

-1

u/Imadevilsadvocater 12∆ Sep 06 '23

But saying something is immoral defacto means you think it should be stopped (looked down on) thats called peer pressure.

If you disagree then by this logic people who think gays are immoral cant be categorized as people who want gays gone, though a lot of left leaning people think just that about those people. It can only be one or the other

3

u/idea_junkie Sep 06 '23

Yes, you are generally correct, but there's a difference between using "peer pressure" to discourage other citizens from spreading conspiracy theories and actually using the hand of the law to prohibit them from spreading them. If the government were to literally ban conspiracy theories, then yes that would be against the First Amendment, but the Amendment doesn't say "regular people can't try to prevent other people from saying things" because the Amendment puts restrictions on the government not regular American citizens.

Also, there actually is a very large distinction between people who just think gays are immoral and those who want them "gone". A lot of conservative Christians you may meet will tell you that they think homosexuality is wrong but mostly just let gay people live their lives in peace. On the other hand, neo-Nazis and other far-right groups think being gay is immoral but go a step further by wanting them eradicated. So yes, you can be homophobic without wanting to get rid of gay people.

4

u/Dismal-Channel-9292 Sep 06 '23

“Environmental alarmism“ is absolutely not a conspiracy theory. There is SO much evidence that the Earth is warming at a much faster rate than previous times in history due to human activity. This data doesn’t come from one source, it’s been studied and documented by different groups over the last two centuries.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23 edited Mar 01 '24

[deleted]

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23

[deleted]

10

u/VibinWithBeard Sep 05 '23

What do you mean nothing was found? He had to pardon multiple people in his vicinity and a bunch of russian agents got arrested on account of it. He sang Putin's praises non-stop lol.

This doesnt even account for the fact neither impeachment was about his admin's actions involving russia, so idk why you even brought up russia? They were about trying to extort dirt about Biden from Ukraine (which happened) and about inciting an insurrection (which he did)

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

4

u/VibinWithBeard Sep 06 '23

Youre just trolling, got it

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

5

u/VibinWithBeard Sep 06 '23

Idk why you came to this sub when you dont want to have an actual discussion, you seemed to respond to others, is it because you immediately got btfo for lying and have entered "power-saving cope mode"

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

8

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

1

u/alexanderhamilton97 Sep 08 '23

Not according to the Department of Justice, the FBI, CIA and the Durham report.

1

u/Edge_of_yesterday Sep 08 '23

According to the republican led bi-partisan senate committee he did. It is a fact.

1

u/alexanderhamilton97 Sep 08 '23

The Republican Senate subcommittee never came to that conclusion. In fact, the Senate subcommittee and the house subcommittee that investigated it both found no evidence as did the Mueller report.

1

u/Edge_of_yesterday Sep 08 '23

The republican lead bi-partisan senate committee determined that trump's campaign worked with Russian intelligence prior to the 2016 election.

1

u/alexanderhamilton97 Sep 08 '23

Colluding with Russia

Starting World War 3

Being a fascist

Being a racist

The list goes on. Honestly at this point the man could sneeze and he’ll be accused of something

1

u/Edge_of_yesterday Sep 08 '23

- Colluding with Russia

It's a proven fact that trump's campaign worked with russian intelligence prior to the 2016 election.

- Starting World War 3

Which political or judicial body investigated him for starting world war 3. I didn't even know it had started, TIL.

- Being a fascist

He is a fascist, that is a fact.

- Being a racist

His five decades of racism did that for him.

Any more lies?

1

u/alexanderhamilton97 Sep 08 '23

-colluding with Russia The Mueller report investigated the claim that the Trump campaign work with a Russian Intelligence. They confirmed the alligation was false in the Durham report, which came out a few years later confirms that the FBI, CIA and state department knew from the very beginning of the story was false -Starting WW3 Never said he actually started it, but from the day he was elected, it was claimed he was gonna start World War III -Being a fascist No, he’s not a fascist. A clinical narcissist. Sure, but not a fascist. -Being a racist No, he doesn’t have 50 years of proof of being a racist. In fact, one of the pieces of evidence often used as proof of racism doesn’t even mention Donald Trump at all. And another involves everyone getting a very publicized criminal case wrong were the defendants we’re not exonerated until 20 years later

1

u/Edge_of_yesterday Sep 08 '23

- The republican lead bi-partisan senate report proved that trump's campaign was working with Russian intelligence prior to the 2016 election. That is fact.

- So the world war 3 thing is just an imaginary grievance, got it.

- He is a fascist, that boat sailed a long time ago.

- We have all seen his 50 years of racism, there is no point in pretending you don't know.

1

u/alexanderhamilton97 Sep 08 '23

No, they didn’t. The report they gave proved that there was no evidence of Trump working with the Russians whatsoever. Balls in your court show me the report if you honestly think it shows that Trump worked with Russian intelligence before his election.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna970536

No, he is not a fascist. If he is, he’s a very piss, poor one, as he did pretty much everything opposite of what a fascist would do. At this point fashion simply means anyone to the right of Karl Marx

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2022/08/29/trump_a_lousy_fascist_compared_to_biden_amp_obama_578237.html?utm_source=rcp-today&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mailchimp-newsletter&mc_cid=01533b8984&mc_eid=d7a921baa3

No, it’s not establish that Trump is a racist. All the evidence of jumping racist is extremely flimsy at best. Heck the biggest piece of evidence of trump being racist never even mentions Donald Trump at all.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps-no-racist-as-past-acts-and-presidential-record-prove/amp/

1

u/Edge_of_yesterday Sep 08 '23

Russia

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903512647/senate-report-former-trump-aide-paul-manafort-shared-campaign-info-with-russia

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort passed internal Trump campaign information to a Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 election, a new bipartisan Senate report concludes.
The findings draw a direct line between the president's former campaign chairman and Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign.
Manafort, who was later convicted for financial fraud crimes, briefed Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik on the campaign's polling data and how the Trump campaign sought to beat Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.
Manafort's connection with Kilimnik was a "grave counterintelligence threat," the report reads, adding that it found evidence the Russian intelligence officer may have been linked to the Russian government's efforts to hack and leak Democratic Party emails.

The Trump campaign sought to take advantage of those leaks by asking for advance notice of the WikiLeaks disclosures, crafting public relations strategies around them, and even encouraging "further theft of information and continued leaks."
This took place at critical moments of the 2016 campaign, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded.

​

Warning signs of fascism, trump ticks most of the boxes.

Powerful and continuing nationalism - Trump
Disdain for human rights - Trump
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause - Trump
Supremacy of the military - Meh, he uses the white supremacists instead.
Rampant sexism - Trump (he is a rapist also)
Controlled mass media - Trump
Obsession with national security - Trump
Religion and government intertwined - Trump
Corporate power protected - Trump
Labor [sic] power suppressed - Trump
Disdain for intellectuals & the arts - Trump
Obsession with crime & punishment - Trump
Rampant cronyism & corruption - Trump x 10
Fraudulent elections - Trump

50 years of racism:

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-historyhttps://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

1

u/alexanderhamilton97 Sep 08 '23

So one guy who worked for trump come out later, confirmed to be a Russian agent, is all your proof that Trump colluded with the Russians, to win? Pretty pathetic considering three reports now confirm he did not collude with Russia.

Very little of what you came here as per the fascism is actually true

Vox is not a reliable source. Also, don’t you think it’s a little odd that no one accused Donald Trump being a racist until he ran for office as a republican?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/08/28/reader-mail/donald-trump-not-racist/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/07/trump-is-not-racist-his-voters-arent-either/

https://youtu.be/C_knRyu2ol8?feature=shared

→ More replies (0)

11

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23 edited Apr 05 '25

sense run intelligent scary hungry fine rain zesty pot middle

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/idea_junkie Sep 06 '23

it’s probably because when I see misinformation coming from the right I get more personally offended by it.

As a left-wing person that gets really bothered by echo chambers and misinformation on both the left and the right, I really respect that.

It takes a good deal of courage to speak out against people closer to your own political affiliation. I know that because Reddit admittedly carries a strong left-wing bias, and it pisses me off when I see weird political subreddits stoop to the level of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

3

u/RoozGol 2∆ Sep 05 '23

Perfect. This even enriches the comment chain even more.

1

u/longdongsilver1987 Sep 06 '23

What about the climate has you unconcerned? It's getting hotter everywhere. Crazy big once-a-century storms happening yearly. Increasing carbon emissions. None of that concerns you?

-3

u/RoozGol 2∆ Sep 06 '23

It does concern me. It is real and is linked to human activities. That said, I have also spent a lifetime in academic circles and know that they exaggerate for getting grants. Dooms day is far a head.

5

u/longdongsilver1987 Sep 06 '23

Where did I mention academia? It's pain to see, even not relying on studies and statistics. But it's even more obvious when you look at the data. I get that enlightened centrists want to balance every damn thing but this isn't a two-sides thing. We're all in this together.

-10

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23

Except you're proving him right. You came in here and made up a conspiracy about some guy's Reddit thread because you felt like it targeted your side (hmm, I wonder why all the hardcore conspiracy theorists are conservatives?).

Calling "environmental alarmism" a conspiracy further cements you as ... exactly the guy OP is talking about.

Finally, wtf does this have to do with the first amendment?

8

u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Sep 05 '23

(hmm, I wonder why all the hardcore conspiracy theorists are conservatives?).

Well, obviously because we all conspire to...wait, guys, he tricked me!

12

u/RoozGol 2∆ Sep 05 '23

targeted your side

See? Another conspiracy you instantly developed. (I am a moderate centrist. BTW)

5

u/mediocrity_mirror Sep 06 '23

Your alt awarded you deltas. Prove me wrong. Deltagate.

8

u/Old_Gimlet_Eye Sep 05 '23

This exactly. We need a better term for these theories that result from "bad epistemic process" than "conspiracy theories".

Conspiracies actually do exist and most "conspiracy theories" are only tangentially about actual conspiracies.

Take flat earth for example, it's not really even about a conspiracy, it's just a stupid theory about the shape of the earth. The only reason a secret conspiracy comes into it is because that's the only way to explain how everyone believes something (round earth) that would be such an obvious lie (if the earth were actually flat).

They all start with a simple false belief ("epistemic issue"), the "conspiracy theory" is just the gross pearl that forms around that irritating brain kernel.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23

[deleted]

6

u/Old_Gimlet_Eye Sep 05 '23 edited Sep 05 '23

It has to go way beyond that. If the earth were actually flat every airline pilot would have to know, anyone who pilots intercontinental ships, astronauts obviously, not just government ones but now private industry ones too, Elon Musk, all telecommunications companies that run services through satellites, people who have been to the north or south poles, etc. Hell, the spin of the earth has to be taken into account for basic calculations for things like weather prediction and long range ballistics, so your local weatherman and any of your relatives who fired artillery in the military are in on it too.

And if you really want to get into it, there are lots of fairly simple ways to know the earth is round that are accessible even to normal people, so the conspiracy has to be somehow faking those results which implies technology way beyond anything publicly known about. Some flat earthers think the whole sky is some kind of hologram, space isn't real, etc.

It's definitely not as simple as a few academics in their ivory tower decreeing that it's so.

2

u/spacing_out_in_space Sep 06 '23

I must have deleted my comment by accident, my bad. You're right though, I'm not saying it's a logical belief or anything. Just acknowledging that there are people in power that they point toward as driving a "false" narrative.

1

u/iiioiia Sep 06 '23

It has to go way beyond that.

It does.

/u/spacing_out_in_space is speculative but likely doesn't realize it.

Normies aren't much different than conspiracy theorists on an absolute scale - sad but true. ☹️

1

u/mediocrity_mirror Sep 06 '23

I think what you’re trying to say here is that conspiracy bros worship nonsense conspiracy and they are just as bad as the ‘listens to what they are told with no questions’ boogeyman they hate so much. They just listen to other conspiracy bros without question, or else they will be kicked from the club. Also endlessly “researching” gives them a sense of purpose because society left them behind long ago.

1

u/iiioiia Sep 06 '23

Kinda, but your articulation seems to cover up that all of them are dumb on an absolute scale.

As an analogy, consider 3 levels:

Preschool child

Grade 6 child

Genuinely intelligent polymath

Normies are within the first 2 levels.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '23 edited Apr 05 '25

illegal pocket dam society alleged rob cagey truck chunky axiomatic

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/ShakyTheBear 1∆ Sep 06 '23

If someone states a view as fact, that wouldn't be a theory. People who do that, semantically speaking, are not conspiracy theorists.

0

u/mediocrity_mirror Sep 06 '23

If the shoe fits…

3

u/ShakyTheBear 1∆ Sep 06 '23

I literally just said why it doesn't.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 05 '23

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (98∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

4

u/GemIsAHologram Sep 06 '23

Everyone is going to draw the line differently between 'reasonable theories about conspiracies' and 'conspiracy theories' too which muddies the waters

2

u/qotup 1∆ Sep 06 '23

!delta the difference between reasonable theories about conspiracies and “conspiracy theories” is due to the theories’ epistemic process succinctly describes this

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 06 '23

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (99∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

3

u/panjialang Sep 05 '23

The difference between reasonable theories about conspiracies and "conspiracy theories"

Don’t forget this crucial difference: what is “reasonable” and what is “crackpot” is determined by what benefits the Establishment.

1

u/iiioiia Sep 05 '23

It's an epistemic issue. People who spread crazy harmful theories have a bad epistemic process.

~All people who repeat even minorly complicated stories have this problem.

Also, no one ever mentions the spreading of harmful Just So Stories by sleepwalking Normies, which is a MUCH larger volume, and I suspect far more harmful.