Cass Sunstein on Bloomberg: We conspiracy theorists are all deluded

We are all deluded hypocrites who constantly contradict ourselves and are more prone to believe conspiracies that make no sense, according to this brilliant wise *shill*... sorry I mean individual Cass Sunstein, who has took it upon himself to explain how we think like we do. He says we're having a field day with the missing Malaysia airlines plane, concocting all kinds of juicy conspiracies about it's disappearance that don't make sense. He then goes on to explain other conspiracy theories that we've come up with in the past that are in his opinion nonsensical and dangerous (conveniently mentioning easily disproved conspiracy theories and ignoring harder to debunk ones).

He gives three explanations why we delusional conspiracy theorists think the way we do

1. People tend to accept other conspiracy theories if they already accepted one.
   
2. There's a close relationship between conspiracy theories and social networks.
   
3. We react to terrible situations with outrage, suspicion and fear and in other words, we go witch hunting.
   

Pssst! Everything's a Conspiracy

He ends with this: "Conspiracists like to say that the truth is out there. They’re right. The challenge is to persuade them to find their way toward it." But he doesn't say how to do that, like he apparently did in the past (which you'll see in the zerohedge article below).

Also check out the comments below the article, they are priceless!



I found that article via another one discussing it on zerohedge:

The Taming Of Deluded 'Conspiracy Theorists'

Valiant Knight of Government-Approved Information Rides to the Rescue

Look who is warning us again about the great harm conspiracy theories are doing to the minds of impressionable citizens everywhere: Cass Sunstein has emerged at Bloomberg, to once again plead for 'correction' of the many conspiracy theories that are disseminated on that pesky new medium, the intertubes, seemingly without inhibition. Contrary to the infamous paper in which he described how to precisely combat the spreading of false information that lacks the government's seal of approval, he doesn't list his favored censorship and disinformation techniques outright this time, but it is certainly implied that 'something must be done'.

What must be done, and who must do it???

Sunstein's recent Bloomberg article is quite interesting though in that it nicely demonstrates the demagogic techniques employed in advancing statist interests. One can immediately see that he has learned a few lessons from the push-back he received the first time around. As noted above, he refrains this time from telling us in detail what government should actually do in order to 'reduce the harm from conspiracy theories'.

He merely asserts that such harm exists, encouraging readers to think about how it might be reduced. He mentions in closing that 'we' need to “persuade the conspiracy theorists to find their way around to the truth”, but he doesn't say how.

Whenever an author invokes 'us', asserting that 'we' must do this or that, what he really means is actually that the government's apparatus of coercion and compulsion must be set into motion to attain certain goals the author approves of.

So it will be the government doing it. The government will "persuade the conspiracy theorists to find their way around to the truth". Forgetting that it's because of fact that governments routinely lying is what provides the food for the conspiracy theorists thoughts. Governments (politicians, bureaucrats) lie all the time. That's why there are conspiracy theorists.

They end with the following:

And this, in a nutshell, is what is really behind Mr. Sunstein's concern with 'conspiracy theories'. It is all about preserving the State's perceived right to rule by letting nothing intrude on the notion that politicians and bureaucrats are 'disembodied spirits solely devoted to the public good' rather than people who pursue their own personal interests.

Check out this fun video posted in the zerohedge article.

I think at this point, its pretty clear that those that deny the possibility of conspiracies are deluded.

History is far to rife with them, all either proven, or readily admitted to.

Its clear someone isn't facing reality.

Well, I hate to say this, but he does have a point. He's not completely 100% correct, but I think some of his statements are correct.

There are many conspiracy theories that are born out of shear ignorance and desire for there to be a conspiracy. Many conspiracy theories are not rooted in any sort of facts and many defy common sense and logic.

There are some cases, such as Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, in which people went off the deep end and concocted theories that were outright insulting....and I would even say dangerous.

I think of myself as a skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist per se. I like to talk about odd theories and alternative views, but in the end I stay fairly close to what I find logical.

Sadly, there are many in the community that do not.

If there were proper investigations into these events that attract conspiracies, it would quickly quell any need to theorize. Stop throwing away evidence. Taking years to write official reports that are heavily retracted.

The truth is harmony. It stands out like a sore thumb when the truth i skated around or ignored entirely.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Well, I hate to say this, but he does have a point. He's not completely 100% correct, but I think some of his statements are correct.

Yeah another example of mixing a few truths in with the lies to confuse people.

I've finally decided conspiracy theories are a mathematical problem. Every time the government tells us "2 + 2 = 5" everyone goes back to look at the issue again to try and figure it out.

sheepslayer247
Well, I hate to say this, but he does have a point. He's not completely 100% correct, but I think some of his statements are correct.

There are many conspiracy theories that are born out of shear ignorance and desire for there to be a conspiracy. Many conspiracy theories are not rooted in any sort of facts and many defy common sense and logic.

There are some cases, such as Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, in which people went off the deep end and concocted theories that were outright insulting....and I would even say dangerous.

I think of myself as a skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist per se. I like to talk about odd theories and alternative views, but in the end I stay fairly close to what I find logical.

Sadly, there are many in the community that do not.

I agree. I believe when being a conspiracy theorist went from a tiny minority of serious research and discussion to a band wagon of those seeking the latest fringe idea, or newest fad, the pure waters got a little bit too muddy and it leads to articles as the OP posted.

"The NSA does not spy on US citizens" - fail.
"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" - fail.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - fail.
"Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK" - fail.
"it was a weather balloon" - fail.
"Mission Accomplished" - fail.

You get the picture, either way Cass Sunstein is a fool and a propaganda disinfo shill.

reply to post by Bassago


I don't think he is trying to confuse people at all. If you read the entire article it's actually a pretty good piece. He touches on many of the issues we have in the conspiracy community, including confirmation bias. I would add that the community also has a problem with accepting arguments of authority.

He even admits that some conspiracies are true:

To be sure, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House, did, in fact, bug the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate complex. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer '___' and related drugs to unknowing subjects in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.)

reply to post by sheepslayer247


But he immediately marginalizes those conspiracy theories that turned out to be true by mentioning Roswell in a tongue in cheek way in the same breath.

reply to post by TheBandit795


That's true. I did say that I did not agree with him 100%.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

I don't think he is trying to confuse people at all. If you read the entire article it's actually a pretty good piece. He touches on many of the issues we have in the conspiracy community, including confirmation bias. I would add that the community also has a problem with accepting arguments of authority.

The best scams are always threaded through with truth and fact. While I agree he touches on many / most of the issues we see here all the time that is not the intent of his writings at all. He is simply pushing the "tin-foil hats are crazy" and what should we do about it meme.

Calling a cat a dog isn't a conspiracy until a bunch of people get together and agree it's a dog to confuse everyone else. I agree with your statement on authority issue, I've never trusted those in authority. Maybe if they'd stop lying all the time I'd believe them more often.

sheepslayer247
There are many conspiracy theories that are born out of shear ignorance and desire for there to be a conspiracy. Many conspiracy theories are not rooted in any sort of facts and many defy common sense and logic.

There are some cases, such as Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, in which people went off the deep end and concocted theories that were outright insulting....and I would even say dangerous.

How can one know the limit if no one as ever gone past it?

I'm not disagreeing with you but I believe we need people that go too far to get to the bottom of things and define truth from lies.

reply to post by Bassago


I cannot comment on his "intent". Only he would know what his true intent is.

Also, this is what I meant when I said arguments of authority.

Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common logical fallacy.[1]

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include[2][3] any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.[4]

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]

This is a huge problem in the community.

Bassago
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

act. While I agree he touches on many / most of the issues we see here all the time that is not the intent of his writings at all. He is simply pushing the "tin-foil hats are crazy" and what should we do about it meme.

And he wants to shut the "tin foil hats" for once and for all as you can see in the zerohedge article. He once made the proposal for government to ban conspiracy theorizing. Apparently he got criticized for that so in this article he backtracked a little.

Cass Sunstein has a rich history of pro ultra authoritarianism, ultra totalitarianism, ultra progressive agendas (standard ultra Left Wing agendas).

His recent reactions are simply part of a psy-ops to make it look like these "conspiracy theories" are delusional.

He's been caught before and exposed.

Roaches always crawl faster when the bug spray is used.

He was all in a flutter about 9/11 conspiracies a few years ago.

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.


Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups

Maybe the above example of *cognitive infiltration* has come true?