Trapped in a hoax: survivors of conspiracy theories speak out

Without even looking, I'm going to take a wild guess that the article is dedicated to left wingers wronged by right-wingers with not a mention of the reverse.
 
baron said:
Without even looking, I'm going to take a wild guess that the article is dedicated to left wingers wronged by right-wingers with not a mention of the reverse.
Click to expand...
I got through the intro, and about halfway into the first case study. So far, the article reads like a bad parody of exactly what you predicted. I don't know if the rest of the article continues in the same vein, but I didn't really see a reason to keep reading and find out.
 
OMG! The article is bad enough but the dismissal by two of our resident alt-whiters is appalling.


If you think there are any Alex Jones equivalents ruining the lives of some innocent white supremacists or Trump supporters or Republicans, then post them instead of pretending this is faux outrage by the left.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What is this supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

Have you followed the Gamergate nonsense back in the day? Wu's involvement wasn't exactly positive; and I don't see the conspiracy theory in any of that.

OMG! The article is bad enough but the dismissal by two of our resident alt-whiters is appalling.


If you think there are any Alex Jones equivalents ruining the lives of some innocent white supremacists or Trump supporters or Republicans, then post them instead of pretending this is faux outrage by the left.
Click to expand...

Baron simply predicted that it would only focus on one side of CTs.

What's an alt-whiter?
 
theprestige said:
I got through the intro, and about halfway into the first case study. So far, the article reads like a bad parody of exactly what you predicted. I don't know if the rest of the article continues in the same vein, but I didn't really see a reason to keep reading and find out.
Click to expand...

It's the Guardian, it holds no surprises.

Belz... said:
Wait, Brianna Wu?
Click to expand...

An appropriate name for this site, and I imagine for her content.

Skeptic Ginger said:
OMG! The article is bad enough but the dismissal by two of our resident alt-whiters is appalling.

If you think there are any Alex Jones equivalents ruining the lives of some innocent white supremacists or Trump supporters or Republicans, then post them instead of pretending this is faux outrage by the left.
Click to expand...

Never heard of Justine Sacco? Wow.
 
Belz... said:
Have you followed the Gamergate nonsense back in the day? Wu's involvement wasn't exactly positive; and I don't see the conspiracy theory in any of that.
Click to expand...
I only loosely followed Gamergate and I don't recall Wu. But no one deserves to be chased out of their homes, jobs, have death threats, all based on made up stories spread on 4Chan and by Alex Jones.

Belz... said:
Baron simply predicted that it would only focus on one side of CTs.
Click to expand...
And I challenge him to find any CT victims on the right. Open the discussion up instead of complaining based on false equivalency.

There are some SJW attacks on right wingers, I don't think they reach the level of harassment noted in the article. But fine, let's hear about them.

Belz... said:
What's an alt-whiter?
Click to expand...
People that support Trump and often complain about minorities and liberals.

You weren't included, you posted while I was composing.
 
baron said:
Without even looking, I'm going to take a wild guess that the article is dedicated to left wingers wronged by right-wingers with not a mention of the reverse.
Click to expand...

One of the subjects was a doctor targeted by anti-vax CTers, which doesn't really break along the typical political divides. Anti-vax enjoys loons from both sides of the aisle and is especially common among affluent, crunchy lefty types as well as right-wing anti government types.

I'll agree that Wu doesn't really belong on the same list. She was certainly a target of internet lynch mobs and trolls, but I would categorize gamergate as more of a culture war than a true CT. Including her isn't so bad given that the tactics of internet harassment and threats are pretty similar.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I only loosely followed Gamergate and I don't recall Wu. But no one deserves to be chased out of their homes, jobs, have death threats, all based on made up stories spread on 4Chan and by Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

I agree. She didn't deserve that. However, it's less to do with conspiracy theories and more about the vitriol she and others on both sides of the 'gate' threw at each other.

People that support Trump and often complain about minorities and liberals.

You weren't included, you posted while I was composing.
Click to expand...

I didn't feel targeted, I just didn't know what you meant.
 
I had read the first two profiles when this article came out a few weeks ago. Skimming through it again, I don't understand what is left/right about this. Declaring that this article fits one's preconceptions about left/right while simultaneously declaring proudly that one didn't actually finish the article before posting here is ... odd?



I didn't understand what the gamergate thing was doing in the article, but the author says that the whole thing started when she tweeted about some CT believers in her industry. Whether the CT was the alleged affair that someone had remains unclear to me, and I really don't want to know. If it is, that's not what most of us understand a conspiracy theory to be; sounds more like rumor-mongering or slander.
 
carlitos said:
I had read the first two profiles when this article came out a few weeks ago. Skimming through it again, I don't understand what is left/right about this. Declaring that this article fits one's preconceptions about left/right while simultaneously declaring proudly that one didn't actually finish the article before posting here is ... odd?
Click to expand...

Or indeed, that one didn't even start reading it. But it seems a logical conclusion of conspiratorial / tribalistic thinking; if one assumes that all of society is polarised into the political left and the political right, that these two groups are implacably opposed to each other, that one's own group is the only one that has any moral or factual validity, and that the opposing group is conspiring to obscure that validity, then one has only to identify the proximate source of a narrative to determine that the narrative either is biased against one's own side, and therefore entirely fabricated, or is entirely factual, and therefore supports one's own position. It saves all that tiresome business of engaging in the process of rational skepticism and assessing accounts on the basis of how well they agree with other evidence. It's clearly a superior approach for some people, because thinking is quite hard work. As is reading.

Dave
 
carlitos said:
I had read the first two profiles when this article came out a few weeks ago. Skimming through it again, I don't understand what is left/right about this. Declaring that this article fits one's preconceptions about left/right while simultaneously declaring proudly that one didn't actually finish the article before posting here is ... odd?
Click to expand...



it's all about the race to be first. then telling the other to prove them wrong. about something something. you'll notice that's the latest wacky craze here.
 
The left? What is this "left" some people keep taking about?

Hans
 
carlitos said:
I had read the first two profiles when this article came out a few weeks ago. Skimming through it again, I don't understand what is left/right about this.
Click to expand...

From the intro and first profile:


The trend began on obscure online forums such as the alt-right playground 4chan.

[...]

Now the conspiracy theorist-in-chief sits in the White House.

[...]

Fontaine is a vulnerable leftwing individual who would not harm a flea, which apparently makes him perfect fodder for the sadistic mockery of 4chan, the anonymous message board that hosts alt-right activists and other extremists.
​

The article is explicitly framed as left/right.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Or indeed, that one didn't even start reading it. But it seems a logical conclusion of conspiratorial / tribalistic thinking; if one assumes that all of society is polarised into the political left and the political right
Click to expand...
Have you actually read the article yourself? Baron guessed well, as it turns out. The article is in fact polarized into the political left and political right.
 
carlitos said:
I had read the first two profiles when this article came out a few weeks ago. Skimming through it again, I don't understand what is left/right about this. Declaring that this article fits one's preconceptions about left/right while simultaneously declaring proudly that one didn't actually finish the article before posting here is ... odd?
Click to expand...

Didn't finish it? I never started it, I never even clicked the link because I knew what I'd find. But let's see if my prediction holds true; one point for a leftist victim or rightist persecutor, zero points for no political slant, minus one point for a rightist victim or leftist persecutor.

1) The victim is a self-described “non-binary gay queer autistic commie.”

+1

2) The persecutors were followers of "Alex Jones and Infowars". We don't know about the victim.

+1

3) OK, no political slant here.

0

4) Brianna Wu, leftist feminist poster girl vs the conservative right misogynists.

+1

5) The baddies here are far right Hilary haters

+1

So, on the scale of -5 to +5 I scored a solid +4.

You say you don't know what's left or right about this, that's a fair question. It's also one you should address to the Guardian, not me.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the prediction that the victims would be more on the left and the conspiracy mongers on the right was correct. Not because of bias from the publisher but because, while false accusations and conspiracies exist along the political spectrum, the business of sizeable outlets and communities unapologetically pushing conspiracy theory is just so much bigger on the right.

There is no leftwing "infowars" that is comparable in scale, unfounded craziness and impact.
 
theprestige said:
Have you actually read the article yourself?
Click to expand...

Yes, all of it.

theprestige said:
Baron guessed well, as it turns out. The article is in fact polarized into the political left and political right.
Click to expand...

Explain to me, please, how you discerned the leftist political affiliations of Lenny Pozner, Dr. Paul Offett and James Alefantis from the article, and where the claims are made that their attackers are from the political right. In particular, the accusation of Nazism levelled at Dr. Offett seems an unlikely one for a right wing attacker to level at a leftist.

Dave
 
Cavemonster said:
I'd say the prediction that the victims would be more on the left and the conspiracy mongers on the right was correct. Not because of bias from the publisher but because, while false accusations and conspiracies exist along the political spectrum, the business of sizeable outlets and communities unapologetically pushing conspiracy theory is just so much bigger on the right.

There is no leftwing "infowars" that is comparable in scale, unfounded craziness and impact.
Click to expand...

It's true that the far left can't organise, but why use 'sizeable outlets' as a criterion? Is somebody whose life is destroyed by a Twitter mob of 10,000 leftists more privileged than the person whose life is destroyed by a mob of 10,000 rightists purely on the basis the latter are more coherently structured?
 
Cavemonster said:
I'd say the prediction that the victims would be more on the left and the conspiracy mongers on the right was correct. Not because of bias from the publisher but because, while false accusations and conspiracies exist along the political spectrum, the business of sizeable outlets and communities unapologetically pushing conspiracy theory is just so much bigger on the right.

There is no leftwing "infowars" that is comparable in scale, unfounded craziness and impact.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you would quantify something like this, but I tend to agree. There are certainly plenty of CT's that are apolitical, and there are some CT's that are popular among lefty types, but I don't see anything on the left anywhere near the abundance of explicitly right-wing political CT's that exist. Birtherism, Pizzagate, QAnon, Benghazi, false flag mass shootings... the list goes on.
 
baron said:
It's true that the far left can't organise, but why use 'sizeable outlets' as a criterion? Is somebody whose life is destroyed by a Twitter mob of 10,000 leftists more privileged than the person whose life is destroyed by a mob of 10,000 rightists purely on the basis the latter are more coherently structured?
Click to expand...

Instead of continuing to kvetch, why not educate us as you have already been invited to do? Name some right wing people destroyed by left wing conspiracy theories.

I mean this seriously, I'm sure some exist. If you seriously have a problem with lack of balance in this thread, why not fix it?
 
Cavemonster said:
Instead of continuing to kvetch, why not educate us as you have already been invited to do? Name some right wing people destroyed by left wing conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Both need not be true. Rightist villains, leftist victims, or both.

Cavemonster said:
I mean this seriously, I'm sure some exist. If you seriously have a problem with lack of balance in this thread, why not fix it?
Click to expand...

Not lack of balance so much as lack of reading, My second post? You know, the one where I give you a name? Nah.
 
theprestige said:
I got through the intro, and about halfway into the first case study. So far, the article reads like a bad parody of exactly what you predicted. I don't know if the rest of the article continues in the same vein, but I didn't really see a reason to keep reading and find out.
Click to expand...


It's good that you didn't read any further. It would probably have upset to see Alex Jones and Andrew Wakefield criticized. There's really no reason why should keep reading and find out about that.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I don't know how you would quantify something like this, but I tend to agree. There are certainly plenty of CT's that are apolitical, and there are some CT's that are popular among lefty types, but I don't see anything on the left anywhere near the abundance of explicitly right-wing political CT's that exist. Birtherism, Pizzagate, QAnon, Benghazi, false flag mass shootings... the list goes on.
Click to expand...


Which CTs "are popular among lefty types"?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Explain to me, please, how you discerned the leftist political affiliations of Lenny Pozner, Dr. Paul Offett and James Alefantis from the article, and where the claims are made that their attackers are from the political right. In particular, the accusation of Nazism levelled at Dr. Offett seems an unlikely one for a right wing attacker to level at a leftist.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of the actual politics of the individuals in the article. It's a question of how the article itself is framed. The introduction frames it explicitly as right/left, and this explicit framing continues into the first case study.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Explain to me, please, how you discerned the leftist political affiliations of Lenny Pozner, Dr. Paul Offett and James Alefantis from the article, and where the claims are made that their attackers are from the political right. In particular, the accusation of Nazism levelled at Dr. Offett seems an unlikely one for a right wing attacker to level at a leftist.
Click to expand...


No, not really. They do it all the time. Their opponents don't even have to be leftists. They do it against moderate liberals, too:
BILLIONAIRE WHO COMPARED OBAMA TO HITLER OFFENDED THAT PEOPLE ARE CALLING HIM A NAZI (Vanity Fair, Sep. 12, 2017)


 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's not a question of the actual politics of the individuals in the article. It's a question of how the article itself is framed. The introduction frames it explicitly as right/left, and this explicit framing continues into the first case study.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course it does. It's because that's what reality is like. So, again, don't read it. It will only upset you to learn about reality.
 
theprestige said:
That Donald Trump is a crypto-fascist who is conspiring to become God-Emperor of America seems to be an article of faith for much of the left these days.
Click to expand...


And you don't think that he's a crypto-fascist conspiracy theorist?! Well, good for you!
 
baron said:
...Never heard of Justine Sacco? Wow.
Click to expand...
Wow :rolleyes:

Yep, there are people that lost their jobs like that person and there was the scientist with exposed cartoon women on his shirt who lost his job. And there was that guy who said women make bad lab partners because they cry if you criticize their work.

What was the CT involved?

theprestige said:
It's not a question of the actual politics of the individuals in the article. It's a question of how the article itself is framed. The introduction frames it explicitly as right/left, and this explicit framing continues into the first case study.
Click to expand...
OK I give up, what left right framing? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
What is this supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
It's an article of faith amongst right-wingers, Gamergaters and their noxious ilk that Wu is an evil person who caused all her own troubles, that no Gamergater ever harassed, doxxed or threatened her (or anyone else).
The usual Alt-right crap.
 
catsmate said:
It's an article of faith amongst right-wingers, Gamergaters and their noxious ilk that Wu is an evil person who caused all her own troubles, that no Gamergater ever harassed, doxxed or threatened her (or anyone else).
Click to expand...

Nope. No points there. Perhaps you should've read my response to Ginger's question first.

The usual Alt-right crap.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well known as an alt-right ideologue, here.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Wow :rolleyes:

Yep, there are people that lost their jobs like that person and there was the scientist with exposed cartoon women on his shirt who lost his job. And there was that guy who said women make bad lab partners because they cry if you criticize their work.

What was the CT involved?
Click to expand...

Is that not obvious? The conspiracy theory is that anybody who makes a joke about minorities or the wonderful 'other' is a bigoted racist who has no rights and who should be hounded mercilessly at every opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Ah I get it. Reprehensible behaviour is OK if you have political sympathies with the perpetrators. It's OK to be a bit racist - making jokes about minorities is fine as long as no-one's burning crosses, is that it?
 
threadworm said:
Ah I get it. Reprehensible behaviour is OK if you have political sympathies with the perpetrators. It's OK to be a bit racist - making jokes about minorities is fine as long as no-one's burning crosses, is that it?
Click to expand...

Oh, do tell. Who here has political sympathies with the 'perpetrator'? Would you even know?
 
threadworm said:
Ah I get it. Reprehensible behaviour is OK if you have political sympathies with the perpetrators. It's OK to be a bit racist - making jokes about minorities is fine as long as no-one's burning crosses, is that it?
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is at odds with the following two.
 
threadworm said:
Ah I get it. Reprehensible behaviour is OK if you have political sympathies with the perpetrators. It's OK to be a bit racist - making jokes about minorities is fine as long as no-one's burning crosses, is that it?
Click to expand...

Of course, no one in authority to worry about.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom