The “Beautiful” Ugliness of Conspiracy Theories

 

I’m wondering/thinking that Conspiracy Theories (CTs) are a lot like Essentially Contested Concepts (ECCs).  Let me explain.  But first a definition.  Here’s one facet of an ECC, according to Wikipedia:

An ECC involves widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., "fairness"), but not on the best realization thereof.^[5] They are "concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users",^[6] and these disputes "cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone".^[7]

(bold emphasis mine)

So, while ECCs are not "objectively provable" (some examples might be biblical or other holy book claims, chocolate ice-cream is better than vanilla, or any other subjective type belief), neither are almost all CTs "objectively provable."  For example, how do you prove that Hillary Clinton didn’t run a child porn ring in the back of a pizza parlor (see Pizzagate), or that there are many Democrats who actually eat children, etc?).  In that way, ECCs and CTs share the same predicament.  IOW, you can’t prove their negative (i.e., that they didn’t happen/aren’t true).  And that’s their ugly “beauty”...  you can’t prove them false.  

(Can I get a nee-ner nee-ner neeee-ner here?) 😉

While you may claim to "know" Conspiracy Theory “X” is not true, some others don’t see it that same way.  They honestly believe CT “X” is true, whether or not you try to deny it or try to convince them otherwise.  CT “X” is subjectively “real” (enough) to them. Now what?  Yeah, now what??

CTs are often the spawn of Dark Free Speech (DFS).  All it takes is a willing participant (someone to believe it) for a CT to take off and perpetuate itself, usually through social media.  Yes, it’s all connected.  Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. 

Question: So, how would you go about proving something (some CT) didn’t happen?  What is the magical formula/answer to solving this problem?

Some suggestions:

• Don’t be a fool  Just give up, as there is no magical formula/answer to convincing conspiracy theorists. 
• Try to find some contrary proof (good luck with finding something that’s not there)! 
• Keep pounding away at them with your “proof” until they “snap out of it.” 
• Offer to pay for psychiatric help for them. 😁
• Other (you tell me)!

Thanks for posting and recommending!  I'm baaaaaack!

Who the GOP Serves

An interesting Washington Post opinion piece, Republicans draw a blank on basic governance, lays out the evidence of who the fascist GOP (FGOP) is working for. It's not average American people. Their bosses are the wealthy and special interests with money for campaign contributions. The WaPo writes:

So how would Republicans pay for upgrades that they agree are needed? Well, there they sound pretty much stumped. “I’m open to suggestions about that,” said [FGOP Senator Roger] Wicker. “One way you pay for it is by seeing significant improved economic growth,” suggested Reeves — which, as CNN host Jake Tapper pointed out, “doesn’t really answer the question.”

The closest attempt at an answer came from Blunt, who suggested paying for a scaled-down package with, among other things, a tax on electric vehicles and driverless cars. But that proposal was in some ways more telling: [FGOP Senator Roy] Blunt’s rationale — that those who benefit from improved infrastructure should fund it — could just as easily apply to the companies that benefit from better roads, bridges and the like as it could to the ordinary Americans who drive on them. Rather than at least splitting the difference between the more equitable corporate tax increase and the regressive taxes on drivers, Blunt would lump the entire burden on drivers.

What makes the GOP intransigence particularly silly is that it’s in defense of a corporate tax cut that didn’t work — for most Americans, that is. When Republicans slashed the corporate tax rate as part of a broader tax reduction in 2017, they predicted that a lower rate would boost companies’ return on investment, raise Americans’ wages and help the bill pay for itself. Even before the pandemic, however, none of those promises came to pass. After an initial bonanza, investment fell short of GOP hopes, with most of the money instead used for dividends and stock buybacks. Wages didn’t rise because of the cuts. In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law paid for only one-fifth of its cuts.

But one suspects that Blunt, Wicker and others are protesting this proposed tax increase because of the narrow portion of Americans for whom the 2017 cut did work: the wealthiest. The dividends and stock buybacks benefited rich investors. Meanwhile, according to a new study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “At least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year despite enjoying substantial pretax profits.” And you know those “savings” aren’t going back into workers’ paychecks.

Remember, whenever the Trump administration launched one of its many ill-fated “infrastructure weeks,” Republicans rarely balked at the price tags — not because those proposals were always funded but because they didn’t make the wealthy and big business pay more of their fair share. So if Biden does sit down with Republicans to talk about paying for an infrastructure package, everyone in the room should be clear on one thing: Republicans don’t really care if this bill — or any other Democratic bill — is paid for. They just don’t want their friends covering the cost. The good news for Democrats is that view is a loser with voters.

It's not the case that the FGOP leadership has no ideas. It's just the case that they cannot admit that they serve the rich and powerful, usually at the expense of the public interest. Given that constraint on their ability to speak freely, they have a hard time coming up with suggestions that serve the public interest without making special interests pay a reasonable portion of the cost. 

Some Evangelicals Who Oppose the Vaccine

Demonstrators at the CDC in Atlanta

Tyranny disguised as safety?

How about vaccine openly asserted as safety?

Some Evangelicals refuse to take the COVID vaccine for religious and/or personal freedom reasons. The New York Times writes:

Stephanie Nana, an evangelical Christian in Edmond, Okla., refused to get a Covid-19 vaccine because she believed it contained “aborted cell tissue.”

Nathan French, who leads a nondenominational ministry in Tacoma, Wash., said he received a divine message that God was the ultimate healer and deliverer: “The vaccine is not the savior.”

Lauri Armstrong, a Bible-believing nutritionist outside of Dallas, said she did not need the vaccine because God designed the body to heal itself, if given the right nutrients. More than that, she said, “It would be God’s will if I am here or if I am not here.”

There are about 41 million white evangelical adults in the U.S. About 45 percent said in late February that they would not get vaccinated against Covid-19, making them among the least likely demographic groups to do so, according to the Pew Research Center.

“If we can’t get a significant number of white evangelicals to come around on this, the pandemic is going to last much longer than it needs to,” said Jamie Aten, founder and executive director of the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College, an evangelical institution in Illinois.

But other influential voices in the sprawling, trans-denominational movement, especially those who have gained their stature through media fame, have sown fears. Gene Bailey, the host of a prophecy-focused talk show on the Victory Channel, warned his audience in March that the government and “globalist entities” will “use bayonets and prisons to force a needle into your arm.” In a now-deleted TikTok post from an evangelical influencer’s account that has more than 900,000 followers, she dramatized being killed by authorities for refusing the vaccine.

“Fear is the motivating power behind all of this, and fear is the opposite of who God is,” said Teresa Beukers, who travels throughout California in a motor home. “I violently oppose fear.”

Ms. Beukers foresees severe political and social consequences for resisting the vaccine, but she is determined to do so. She quit a job at Trader Joe’s when the company insisted that she wear a mask at work. Her son, she said, was kicked off his community college football team for refusing Covid testing protocols.

“Go ahead and throw us in the lions’ den, go ahead and throw us in the furnace,” she said, referring to two biblical stories in which God’s people miraculously survive persecution after refusing to submit to temporal powers.

Jesus, she added, broke ritual purity laws by interacting with lepers. “We can compare that to people who are unvaccinated,” she said. “If they get pushed out, they’ll need to live in their own colonies.”

A combination of irrational fear, ignorance, sincere religious belief and crackpot conspiracy theory team up to cause more damage to America's already badly damaged society. Some do not trust science, but they trust God. Maybe some of these folks are unaware that their immoral, irresponsible behaviors will needlessly cause some innocent people to die and needlessly cause more economic loss to the economy. Maybe they have been told but either don't believe it or don't care enough to change their opposition to the vaccine. 

Questions: Is it unfair, irrational and/or unreasonable to consider people who refuse to take the vaccine to be acting immorally and irresponsibly? Is it counterproductive to even criticize such behavior and instead just let people do what they want? What about the innocents that will inevitably get sick and die after getting COVID from an Evangelical who could have been vaccinated but refused, e.g., is that negligent manslaughter? Do the fears of some Evangelicals about tyranny at bayonet point or thrown into the furnace or lion's den make any sense, or is it just another toxic manifestation of the Christian Persecution Myth and merely figurative speech and belief? Is it time for America to revoke tax breaks, worth at least $82 billion/year (my guess is at least ~$100 billion/year), for religious organizations?

"The Vatican has said that vaccines are “morally acceptable,” and Catholics in 

America are much less likely than white evangelicals to say they won’t get vaccinated.

Pope Francis visited a vaccination site in the Vatican on Friday."

Tucker Carlson's Winning Legal Defense Against Slander

The happy guy -- the court bought his defense

Last September, NPR reported on the outcome of a slander case brought by Karen McDougal against Tucker Carlson. In his defense, Carlson argued that he did not slander McDougal because no one would believe that the things he says on his Fox News broadcast are true. NPR writes:

Tucker Carlson appears to be made of Teflon. Fox News' top-rated host has been repeatedly accused of anti-immigrant and racist comments, which have cost his political opinion show many of its major advertisers. Yet Carlson endures in his prime-time slot.

Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."

Vyskocil's ruling last week, dismissing a slander lawsuit filed against Carlson, was a win for Fox, First Amendment principles and the media more generally, as Fox News itself maintains. As a legal matter, the judge ruled that Karen McDougal, the woman suing Carlson, failed to surmount the challenge.

Sidney's lawsuit

This case is followed by Sidney Powell's now pending defense against a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed against her, discussed here before. In her defense, Powell argues that “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” because “Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims,' and such claims are repeatedly labeled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.'” Powell made her assertions on various Fox News programs.

On top of that, Powell still asserts she believes her claims are just her opinions, but they are actually true. That takes real nerve. One the one hand she argues no reasonable person could take her seriously, but at the same time she speaks the truth. Therefore, should the reasonable person be confused?

Hey, you boobs, If Tucker can get away with it, so can I

and I've got the cojones to do it!

The new Fox lawsuit

Meanwhile, Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which seems to be in a rock and a hard place. Fox has to stand by the pretense that it broadcasts real news, but at the same time has argued for Carlson that he is a liar (spewer of non-literal commentary). Carlson's winning legal defense that he is just a blowhard might complicate Fox's likely defense that it is a serious news source and deserves free speech protection as a member of the press. NPR comments on this new mess:

Dominion Voting Systems has filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, saying the network spread false claims that the voting machine company was involved in voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election.

"Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process," according to the lawsuit filed Friday in Delaware. "If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does."

"Fox endorsed, repeated, and broadcast a series of verifiably false yet devastating lies about Dominion," the complaint says, including claims that the company's software manipulated the results of the 2020 vote.

In response, Fox News issued a statement Friday morning stating that it "is proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalism, and will vigorously defend against this baseless lawsuit in court."

If Dominion decided to file a defamation lawsuit against Carlson (in addition to the Fox lawsuit), that would be really interesting. Then Fox would have to argue that one of its top news entertainer blowhards is a liar but Fox only broadcasts real news. What seems to be a possible impending disaster is that the courts will make defamation law meaningless. 

Fox: We only tell the truth, but reasonable people should not believe that

Reasonable person: Huh?

The future of defamation law

If I recall right, meaninglessness is happened to age discrimination law. A company successfully argued that it was not discriminating on the basis of age but instead was just seeking employees would would work for lower wages. The court agreed that argument was adequate without other contrary evidence (which almost never exists). After that, all companies argued the same thing and age discrimination lawsuits withered and died. 

Is about the same thing brewing for defamation law? If so, it would be an odd twist. When he was in office, the ex-president wanted defamation laws weakened so that he could sue newspapers into oblivion to shut them up. Now, his own judge appointees may be going in the opposite direction, or far more ominously, in a direction where one partisan side can use it against opponents, but the opponents cannot use it the same way. At present, it is not clear that the courts could dream up the excuses needed to convert defamation law into a mostly partisan weapon. 

But given the far right extremism-fascism of the judges the ex-president put on the bench, all possibilities are on the table, including crackpot possibilities.