pull down to refresh

10.4k sats \ 14 comments \ @Undisciplined 26 Mar libertarian

This is part 7 of my series answering Bob Murphy's "Tough Questions for Libertarians". Here is an overview of the series: #458128

Question

For libertarians who spend time making fun of conspiracy theorists, why do you do that?

Context

The point of this question really has nothing to do with the specifics of any particular "conspiracy theory". It has more to do with recognizing that the label "conspiracy theory" only gets applied to narratives that are not sanctioned by the regime. People who believe the official account of 9/11 are not called conspiracy theorists, for instance, when that explanation is clearly a conspiracy. On the other hand, if you question the efficacy of a vaccine, you are likely to be called a conspiracy theorist, despite having posited no conspiracy and really not even having a theory.

So, Bob is basically asking "Why are you mocking people for questioning the regime's narratives?" The alternative, I suppose, is to just ignore them and not worry about it, if you think they're views are wrong.

Here's the full clip of Bob posing this question: https://fountain.fm/clip/m6rFnXbyfxtqtcoWF5m5

Answer

This is the first of the questions that doesn't apply to me. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that I think are dumb, sometimes those are even the regime approved ones. However, I don't spend any energy disparaging fringe weirdos for having weird fringe ideas.

That said, I can steelman these folks a little bit. There's nothing incompatible with libertarianism about generally believing the mainstream narrative of events. As long as you think it's wrong to govern through coercion, you're a libertarian. So, you could think the proliferation of these false conspiracy theories is dangerous and, since you don't believe in coercion, that ridicule and ostracism are the appropriate social tools for governing this type of thing.

Even if you don't agree with every approved view, you may not think the government is full of bad faith psychopathic liars. Rather, you could think there are just certain economic theories they're mistaken about and that's why so much policy is misguided. In other words, their set of facts is correct, but their theoretical framework is mistaken. In that scenario, there's no particular reason you wouldn't want to make fun of the preposterous set of facts adhered to by conspiracy theorists.

Rant

I think there is something more interesting going on here and I'll offer it as my explanation for why certain libertarians go out of their way to ridicule anyone who disagrees with the approved narratives. It has nothing to do with libertarianism, btw.

People are very lacking in humility. Once they accept a narrative, they generally aren't interested in seeing it challenged. We like to think we're super smart, so if we accepted an explanation it was probably the right one. Therefore, whoever has a different explanation is not as smart as us and is clearly wrong. Why listen to someone who's not as smart as you, when you can just drown out their wrong ideas with endless repetition of your correct one?

Everyone here has adopted at least one pretty unusual position, so you've surely faced "counterarguments" that are just the mainstream generally accepted position. People who have never thought an issue through will condescendingly deliver the approved position as though you must have just never heard it before (and aren't they just so smart for knowing it). It doesn't seem to cross people's minds that in order to arrive at an unusual opinion, you presumably had some reason for rejecting the usual opinion: the problem is just that you've never heard the super smart opinion they accepted uncritically (probably in grade school).

@kepford had a nice post recently #478976 about how people lie about so many things. I think this is a cousin of that behavior. Although it's not explicitly in bad faith, the lack of humility involved in asserting, as unassailable fact, things you have only a marginal understanding of is another major way that regime propaganda pervades society.

I'm also reminded of @elvismercury recently claiming that most people claiming to be open-minded are just larping at being open-minded (apologies for not tracking down wherever that was posted). I totally agree. I think one way to test yourself is to think how you respond to ideas contrary to your own. Is your first instinct to fight back or is it to ask follow up questions? Are those questions sincere or are they just a less confrontational form of fighting back?

view all related items

300 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 26 Mar

A relevant idea comes out of the dissonance literature. In a nutshell:

When people feel extremely secure in their beliefs, they care little about what other people say about the issues. If some nutcase was running around on the street talking about how gravity is an illusion, you might smile, and maybe make fun of the person, but you wouldn't feel threatened by the guy's ideology. It is so obviously nonsensical, and the refutation of it is so evident, and your position as a gravity-believer so dominant, that you can be disinterested and above the fray.

When any of these parameters change, people's feelings about contrary ideas change, too. If the guy was talking about something that was not trivially falsifiable, or if the ideology he was proposing could threaten your own interests somehow, were it to be accepted by others, then your feelings on the matter would change. Or (perhaps most relevant to your particular point) if there was a chance that other people might mistake this guy (who is an idiot) as a member of your tribe (which is filled with people of keen and discerning intelligence, such as yourself) then his rantings become a threat, and the job to do is to distance your tribe from his dumb beliefs, and also ridicule his dumb beliefs.

It's informative to consider which exact conspiracy theories draw ridicule from which exact groups. That would probably reveal a great deal about the forces bubbling underneath the surface.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 31 Mar

Good points. I do often wonder about the why when "the establishment" suddenly targets one of these fringe groups.

I think to those of us who are further out here on the fringe, it's odd that some of our brethren are constantly trying to ingratiate themselves with establishment statists, since supposedly we're united in thinking that's a dangerous crackpot ideology.

In practice, all that's really going on most of the time is that those libertarians live in DC or NYC or LA and their friend group is made up of mainstream Democrats who they don't want to alienate. Since they do agree that whatever "conspiracy theory" is dumb, why not bond over that?

210 sats \ 6 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 26 Mar

Exploring ideas and talking about them does not equate to belief in them. Even if it rises to the level of belief, talking about one's beliefs is not a "proliferation of... false conspiracy theories." Constructs like these are a result of the past 50 years of narrative control gaslighting. Free speech is not just protected - it is absolutely necessary for mental health.

Everyone should feel free to talk about what they are thinking about. If you disagree, you have internal issues that are harming the group.

17 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Mar

Let's imagine you're a libertarian with totally normie views other than that.

When people are speculating about childhood vaccines causing all manner of long-term health problems, they're creating distrust in those medical interventions. Hypothetical normie you thinks the science is completely settled on vaccine safety, so it's reasonable to view that as proliferating socially dangerous beliefs.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 26 Mar

I understand your position. I don't think speculation is the root of the problem. I think it is the lack of care in distinguishing speculation from fact. Questioning mainstream narratives is healthy. There should never be zero questioning, according to the scientific method and my belief. There is a level of questioning that is ridiculous, but it is not universally unhealthy. It depends on context.

It might be dangerous if multiple seemingly credible and seemingly authoritative people make it into an institution that is responsible for decisionmaking over millions of people. And where speculation is elevated to presumption of fact without adequate evidence for doing so, it may not be ideal. But those who allow their fears to bring them to the point they are willing to censor others have jumped the shark. (fallacy of addressing what could be, rather than what is).

The construct 'social danger,' therefore, is the danger itself. To allow one's mind to carry a receptacle otherwise unlabeled into which another's actions can be placed, which then allow for otherwise unjustifiable force against them, is folly.

17 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Mar

I basically agree with everything you're saying.

These hypothetical normie libertarians aren't looking to censor anyone. They're basically enforcing a stigma around views that they think are dangerous to discourage others from considering those views.

We could flip this around and imagine we lived in a free society and there were these crackpots telling people that if we just had rulers violently coercing the populace the world would be better. I would definitely want that view to be stigmatized to keep people from entertaining it.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 26 Mar freebie

I'm with you on that too, it's just that I would see addressing the crackpots claims as the solution. Or just laughing and handing them a pushcard that has 'top 100 stupid claims against our society that appear fully debunked for all time and where to go if you think you have a bug report to our foundational understandings (you probably don't).'

What happens instead, is people get afraid that the crackpot will be believed, and then the idea will spread, and then it will become a movement, and then the movement will take political action, and then they will form a lobby, and then they will take seats in government, and then they will enact policies, and then they will harm people. Delusional fears of what could be that are then manifested into reality rather than dealt with by the person who has... delusional fear.

Dude, it's just a crackpot. Let the guy talk and allow those who have a natural instinct to guide him away from his illogical perusings to do so.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 31 Mar

I want to apologize, I never thought throughout this back and forth that you were at fault in anything you said, but here I see I sounded kind of confrontational. "If you disagree, you have internal issues that are harming the group." Saying 'you' as though I meant... you, but I didn't. Good thoughts here

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 31 Mar

I didn't pick up on any offense. It's good to hit these things from a bunch of different angles.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 26 Mar

For libertarians who spend time making fun of conspiracy theorists, why do you do that?

Because they don't want to be labeled as a 'conspiracy theorist.' As confident in libertarian theory as they may be, as confident in their ability to voice it as they may be, they are not confident in their ability to overcome the social stigma (which reverberates to their lobster nerves.)

This, of course, is why the term was created. It is an in/outgrouping mechanism. You are either a dismissable conspiracy theorist, or you are a valid person.

One can be forgiven for viewing those who take the statist narrative side to preserve their own social status as a part of the problem.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Mar

I agree with this explanation also, but I wanted to be as charitable as possible in my answer.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @kilianbuhn 26 Mar

This has nothing to do with libertarians, ask this question literally everybody.

I have no problem with conspiracy theories in general. But I guess a lot of them aren't about the idea itself at all - they're just people wanting attention and be provocative and getting a feeling of self worth out of it "I am smart, other people are not" 🤓☝🏻 You can recognize people like that because they'll always 1-up all the time to stay special

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Mar

The reason the question is for libertarians, is that we oppose state power, and this behavior reinforces that. Most other people support state power to some extent, so there's no contradiction when they shill for the regime.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 26 Mar

I'd say that's no more common than those who live in self-inflicted terror over a theory that isn't real.