Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CarlJH t1_ivxz3h3 wrote

Reply to comment by Bright-Ad8656 in The Warped Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories by CartesianClosedCat

So, let me weigh in on this, because I think your theory isn't far from the truth.

There is an increasingly common belief in the idea of stochastic terrorism (the idea that if you reach enough unhinged people with enough propaganda, and if you can create enough emotional arousal in that group, one (or more) of them will eventually act in a way that, while not entirely predictable, will be violent and it will be against your target.

I believe that stochastic terrorism is a thing, and I believe that it is the aim of many of the backers of right wing fringe media.

It is only natural that the far right effluvia would ramp up near critical times, such as elections, and that would naturally increase the chances of such attacks.

Unfortunately, my belief in the theory of Stochastic Terrorism is just that, a belief. There is absolutely no scientific evidence (to my knowledge) that such a thing really exists. SO far, all I have read about it has been speculative. So If you were to gather data, in a scientific manner, I would be really interested in seeing it.

3

iiioiia t1_iw3ilfc wrote

If you consider how (comprehensively) it came to be that you believe this, what do you come up with?

3

CarlJH t1_iw7ia5n wrote

What are you asking me exactly?

First, I accept the notion that people are influenced by the media to which they are exposed. If you don't believe this, then all the world's ad agencies would like a word with you. A preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that media exposure sways beliefs, whether it be the brand of tomato sauce they buy or whether African Americans commit crime at a higher rate or are more prone to violence.

Secondly, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the idea that the ownership of the media, especially the right wing media, would be would be predominately oligarchs who would welcome right wing violence against their political opponents, but would not wish to be connected to the actors who commit such acts.

Thirdly, it is similarly no stretch of the imagination to believe that the people who have committed such violence in the past have been avid consumers of far right media, the primary source of such false news stories as the "stolen election."

Finally, given the first fact, and the two entirely reasonable assumptions, it would seem to follow that there is some connection between the well documented increase of right wing violence and the prevalence of far right media sources. The fact that these right wing media sources have not toned down their rhetoric in the face of this increase means one of three things: 1)They don't believe that there is a connection, 2) They believe that there is a connection but the outcome has been undesirable, or 3) They believe that there is a connection and they are pleased with the outcome.

Option 1 and 2are unlikely; the aim of media is to influence. If they thought they were not influential they would do something different, and if they thought they were influential in a way that was dangerous, they would change as well. That leaves option 3. So, given the first fact, and the reasonable assumptions that followed, it appears that the oligarchs and I would be in agreement on the effectiveness of stochastic terrorism.

Unfortunately, the coincidence of the rise in right wing media outlets and the rise in right wing violence may be only coincidental. We can document correlation but not causality, so therefore, my belief is still just a belief, and a very provisional belief at that.

So we're back to where I started, I have a belief but with insufficient evidence to take it as fact. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, "belief" is a broad term. My belief in the universality of gravity is much stronger than my belief in next week's weather forecast. Both are subject to change, given compelling evidence. Though one will require more evidence than the other. The more strongly held my belief, the more I am likely to treat them as fact.

2

iiioiia t1_iw7l4xk wrote

It's a decent story, I wonder how true it is.

1

CarlJH t1_iw8bzss wrote

You ask me why I hold a belief, then when I take the time to tell you, you wonder if I might be lying about why I hold that belief?

2

iiioiia t1_iw8ci1c wrote

No, I am referring to the distinction between belief and knowledge/truth. I don't doubt you believe the things you do.

1

CarlJH t1_iw8d2bl wrote

I am still not sure what it is that you are wondering about. Do you wonder if it's true that the far right exploits Stochastic Terror or do you wonder if there is a distinction between belief and knowledge?

2

iiioiia t1_iw8e92t wrote

The two ideas are intermingled: there is the degree to which the far right exploits Stochastic Terror, and then there is the degree to which people believe that the far right exploits Stochastic Terror.

There are also many other related ideas, like to what degree is each of us guilty for contributing (via action, or inaction) to the suboptimality that exists in the world, to what degree are people capable of considering such ideas, etc.

Humans are a very curious species - so much potential, but so much hubris, delusion, and folly. What will they get up to next with their fairy-tale-based culture???!!

0