David Sirota: Please Shut Up, You Dumb Conspiracy Theorists

[greyl]

He brings up an important issue.
For the record, I don't think Conspiracy Theorists are dumb, nor do I think Sirota really believes that.
He's just pissed with good reason.

Please Shut Up, You Dumb Conspiracy Theorists

I hate blogging about blogging, but I wanted to raise a bit of a concern about the strange conspiracy theory-ish tick among a small but vocal minority of bitter souls in the netroots that serves to further the image of the blogosphere as a place only for fringe lunatics, rather than thinking people. This image, of course, is inaccurate - but it doesn’t help when the discourse is infested with wild, off base and totally unsubstantiated theories that have absolutely no shred of connection to reality. My beef is with this: whenever a blogger asks substantive questions of one Democratic presidential candidate, that person usually gets accused of, at best, helping the right, or more often, working for and being paid by another presidential candidate.

This first kind of attack is irritating in the same kind of way the Bush administration regularly accuses its opponents of aiding and abetting terrorists when anyone asks an honest question about the Iraq War. Sorry, folks - “democracy” doesn’t mean just sitting back and staying silent while D.C. insiders coronate celebrities with party nominations for the most powerful office on the Planet Earth. Similarly, asking our candidates to explain themselves and what they would actually do in office is not helping our opponents - it’s doing our civic duty.

But it is this second line of attack (see this post’s comments for a typical example) that really gets me even angrier, because it is so boldly dishonest. Whenever I have posed questions about the factual record of any of the presidential candidates - whether its Obama, or Clinton or anyone else - inevitably I am accused by some commenters and some other bloggers of doing it because I am being paid by another candidate. They don’t want to talk about actual issues, or any of the factual points I bring up. And, of course, they offer no proof of their diversionary accusations because there actually IS no proof because I actually don’t work for another presidential candidate, nor have I even talked to any presidential candidates about working for them.

the rest

edit: moved the disclaimer to the top to try to prevent hasty conclusions.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. David Sirota will be accused of being in on the conspiracy...

...in 3...2...1...

[quickesst]

2. 1....

1...1....1....1....1....1....1....1....:-)

[nam78_two]

3. What Sirota was talking about was not

even tangentially related to 9/11 or any of the "mainstream conspiracies"...

He was just talking about a specific type of internet dialogue template. I think its because all those who worship at the temple of Obama on Kos slammed him for suggesting that Obama may not be the best possible candidate for the Democratic party.

[greyl]

4. It is related. nt

[noise]

5. The context has no relation to 9/11

Furthermore, I think the suspicion of the "attackers" is more driven by authoritarianism than conspiracism.

When someone like Sirota refuses to be a cheerleader or reflexively put politicians with a 'D' by their name on a pedestal...that doesn't go over well with authoritarians.

[greyl]

6. It's related to this 9/11 forum, and some recent conversations. nt

[noise]

7. Would help if you explained your position

My guess is you are referring to characterizations. For example:

"If someone criticizes the 9/11 truth movement, they might be labeled a gatekeeper or a shill working for the Bush administration."

Dishonest tactic? Yes.

All these tactics work both ways. Debunkers sometimes shut down debate by labeling skeptics of the 9/11 Commission's findings as tin foil hat CT'ers. We've seen the Bush administration use the anti-American card. Taibbi's piece is a good example of painting with a broad brush. He points to the extreme which serves to discredit everyone who questions the 9/11 Commission's findings.

IMO, the same people who give Sirota a hard time (for criticizing some Democratic politicians) also tend to give the 9/11 truthers a hard time. Same tendency towards authoritarianism.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. Good post.

Welcome to DU!

[greyl]

9. You got it, but I disagree with one thing:

noise: "IMO, the same people who give Sirota a hard time (for criticizing some Democratic politicians) also tend to give the 9/11 truthers a hard time."

I don't see that at all. You really believe that characterization? It's true that debunkers can have stereotypes of CTists constructed with the most extreme examples, but a debunker is a debunker is a debunker. Skeptics(should) enjoy debate, rather than try to shut it down by resorting to false claims, ad hominems, or characterizations that poison the well. I can't imagine that the majority of debunkers or skeptics would accuse someone of being a shill for the competition before they argued the facts in evidence. In contrast, there are hundreds of examples of debunkers being called right-wing shills in here, because the Truther doesn't have an argument of substance.
To my eyes, it's those that aren't comfortable being disagreed with who tend to demonize their opposition before an authentic debate can even begin.

edit:format

[wildbilln864]

10. OK...and

a debunker is a contestant and the judge of the contest at the same time!

[greyl]

11. All sides of debate judge the proceedings.

Learning how to analyze the veracity of ones own arguments is a crucial part of becoming a more effective critical thinker. Anyone can learn how to do it, and as one learns the value of critical thinking and how to apply it in an emotionally detached way, they enjoy the confidence of one who has reached a solid conclusion. (they will also find themselves on the winning side more debates)

Critical thinking is a tool that we can all use to be better judges of whether claims are believable and convincing. If a group of people are doing it together, honestly, as in an online discussion, truth has a very difficult time hiding from it.

Haven't you ever successfully debunked something? If so, you're a debunker.

[noise]

12. More than one interpretation

I agree the analogy works in regards to overly defensive 9/11 truthers. But I've also noticed that 9/11 truthers are sometimes accused of helping Bush Co.:

"This CT stuff makes Democrats look bad."

"We need to go after Bush Co. on real issues."

9/11 truth takes both parties to task. That is another aspect that pisses off some people. IMO, the people who get the most upset tend to be those who talk of "Rallying behind the Democrats." Meaning, their paradigm is "us vs them" or "good guys vs. bad guys." I used the term authoritarian because one of the patterns of behavior concerns ignoring the flaws with your own leaders. So 9/11 truthers are sometimes accused of helping Bush Co. when in reality they are pointing out problems with BOTH parties.