How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?

I was talking with someone today about nutrition. This person has a PhD in material science. They mentioned eating beef daily and I asked about the cholesterol implications. The answer was about a vague ‘they’ wanted us to think that, but it wasn’t true anymore.

I hear the vague ‘they’ so frequently now it’s just a normal conversation. In truth, as soon as I hear the vague they I dismiss the speaker’s credibility on the subject, but how did we get here? Vague they wanted us to think X is a valid counter argument by the most highly educated people in our society?

This sounds like more of a rant than a question, but I do truly want to know how this happened? Was it pop culture like the X Files that made conspiracy theories main stream? Was it social media? When will the vague they stop being an accepted explanation? Has it always been this way and I didn’t notice?

Thanks, love you!

  • Darkonion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I don’t know, but I started realizing that nearly all of the holiday traditions I’d ever participated in originated by way of some well received piece of advertising. It’s all a mess. It’s all people lying to each other for power, influence, and resources back to the very beginning. The internet certainly allows for messages to travel and build to critical mass faster, but humanity and this behavior originated together, only the tools change.

  • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    When did academic journals just start publishing nonsense? When did conspiracy theories like a shadow cabal of evil people that record the rich and powerful abusing children become obvious reality? When did literally hundreds of government officials state UFOs are real, they’re not human, and there’s a good chance they’re not natural phenomena?

    Science only has trust if you can trust those with the means to verify the work, do actually verify the work. The reproducibility crisis in all scientific fields was at a peak before LLMs were on every single phone; now there no such thing as trustworthy peer reviewed research that can be reproduced, even if the money was there to test everything that was published.

    Tl;Dr the entire scientific world lost credibility and a whole lot of conspiracies were proven real as more CIA docs got declassified. Anything might be true at this point.

  • Yermaw@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I think it’s always been this way, but social media has for sure exacerbated it. People really want to believe there’s some big order, some grand control, somebody in charge that all makes sense somewhere somehow.

    “They” don’t want you to know because its all about power and control is weirdly a lot more palatable than “shit just happens”.

  • StoneyPicton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    I think it’s quite simple, really. In the absence of truth comes speculation. It’s not important who the “they” is and is irrelevant to the topic being challenged. What is important is to find a path to truth that can regain the public’s trust. “Extreme” transparency will now be required in order to regain that trust. As always the pendulum swings to great lengths and effectiveness.

  • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    I think it’s always been like this. I’m old as dirt, and I remember noticing the same thing in the 90s

    We desperately need to teach critical thinking skills and source evaluation

  • davel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    The answer was about a vague ‘they’ wanted us to think that, but it wasn’t true anymore.

    I hear the vague ‘they’ so frequently now it’s just a normal conversation.

    If you want to know what “they” someone might be talking about, then ask them. Some conspiracies are very much real.

    Michael Parenti, 1996, Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, Ethnic Life and Class Power:

    Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.

    Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon’s downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as “a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery,” the greatest financial crime in history.

    Often the term “conspiracy” is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against “overheating” the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, “Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?” In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.

    At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, “Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?” I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that “free-market reforms” are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, “more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies” (New York Times 11/25/95).

    Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    MKUltra was a secret government program that experimented on people using LSD and torture. The man who became the Unabomber was one of its victims.

    COINTELPRO was a series of covert and illegal projects conducted between 1956 and 1971 by the FBI aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations that the FBI perceived as subversive. This included feminist organizations, the Communist Party USA, anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists in the civil rights and Black power movements (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement , Chicano and Mexican-American , and independence movements (including Puerto Rican independence groups).

    The Iraq War was predicated on “weapons of mass destruction” which the government knowingly lied about.

    The United Fruit Company backed a coup in Honduras.

    General Motors conspired to collapse the streetcar industry to gain a monopoly on public transportation.

    Cigarette companies suppressed information on the health effects of cigarettes.

    Oil companies suppressed information on the environmental effects of fossil fuels.

    Purdue Pharma conspired to suppress the risks of Oxycontin and to expand the use of the drug to levels they knew would cause addiction.

    My point is, there are true conspiracies all the time. The internet has made it possible for more people to know about it. Unfortunately it has also made it easier for false conspiracy theories to propagate

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Also, the fact that those conspiracies were real severely eroded trust in institutions both government and corporate. For example, does anybody really believe the FBI stopped suppressing leftists in 1971? Hell no; they just started calling it something other than COINTELPRO that’s still classified.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Yes, there is ample evidence that we should be distrustful of capitalist, imperialist states and the corporations & capitalists which run them. Previously. Previously.

  • Executive Chimp@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    How did we get here? We’ve always been here. There have always been people warning about “they”. Some portion of them have always been otherwise intelligent.Some portion of them have even been correct. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s easier for conspiracy theories to spread now, with the internet, and that’s led to them being less fun and more dangerous, but it’s mostly just the same shit.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I think it’s a reaction to another institutional tendency, which is to treat the best known theories as if they were incontrovertible facts.

    Science and history are largely the search for closer and closer approximations to truth, but those approximations are always flawed and incomplete. And if they’re presented as already-attained truths, a critic can point out the flaws as evidence of deliberate deception—and then present any alternative they like without its being subjected to the same scrutiny.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Speak for yourself. Whenever I hear the vague “they” I ask who exactly that is supposed to be. Sometimes in earnest, sometimes I just sarcastically throw it back at them: They?

    But as far as I can I try to make sense of what people are trying to tell me.

    BTW a PhD does not protect one from being nuts, please perish the thought.

    In the case you mentioned I’d really like to know why they said it wasn’t true anymore, in addition to who “they” are.

    • lattrommi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I do the same with “we”. Someone will say something like “How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?” and my first thought is “Who is ‘we’? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?” because I personally don’t feel like I am casual about conspiracy theories. It doesn’t matter if that’s accurate or not. When someone uses “we” like that, they are speaking for others in a way that might not be true and in my opinion that’s a manipulative way to trick some people to think incorrectly and excludes the possibility that other people might think in a different way. I don’t like when others speak on my behalf, I am not part of their “we” world.

  • ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Idk what material science is but it doesn’t sound like nutrition.

    As someone getting their PhD I know a lot about my very specific sub topic in a very small field but that’s it. Who even has time to really know anything else? So point being highly educated people can still be bozos though they should have better research skills.

  • Hyphlosion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    In regards to the beef guy. As someone who is on the carnivore diet, I’m guessing “they” are the lobbyists for Big Grain (or whatever) who fight to keep the Standard American Diet in place. You know, even though it hasn’t been working for decades and we’re fatter than ever.

    (If anyone is curious, I was previously on carnivore to lose weight and it helped a lot. Nowadays I’m also on it because it’s the only thing that combats my long covid symptoms. Carnivore is an anti-inflammatory diet, so I guess it makes sense why it’s helping.)

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      “They” can also just he normal people who don’t want to be wrong. Doctors are famous for their humility and self reflection.

      The cholesterol heart hypothesis was pushed by ancel Keys, who has since been shown to be a dishonest academic, leaving out data, or abandoning research if the results didn’t math the preconceived conclusions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys

      In medicine, like many fields, sometimes the old guard has to retire out before change can happen.

      I’m also a [email protected] and I’ve satisfied myself that LDL by itself is not a risk factor I should be concerned with.

  • ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I feel in this new world ruled by social media and the need for online attention as a measure of self worth, conspiracy theories are the low hanging fruit answer to standing out and getting that attention.