I am going to attempt to address some conspiracy theories. I will be using logic, cost-benefit analysis, and examining the practical steps we should and can take.
A few theories to jog your memory:
WARNING: CONTENT OF THESE VIDS MAY BE DISTURBING
-
-
(courtesy of rage)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-etc
Argument #1: Plausibility of Examination
First of all, anyone with a moment to examine the plausibility of investigating such theories will invariably conclude that further investigation would be tedious, require expensive resources, and involve access to inaccessible information and/or people.
For many this leaves the other option of clamouring for the "truth", or demanding greater "transparency". It is the cheaper alternative to finding out the truth for oneself.
The problem with this tactic is, if you distrust someone to reveal the truth, then why is it logical to assume that whatever "truth" they reveal with be the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? So, expecting to learn the truth from a source you gravely distrust is a bit oxymoronic, ain't it?
For others, this logic trap leaves another alternative; whistleblowers. These people seek to immortalize anyone who reveals anything about the distrusted parties, regardless of the relevance or utility of such information. They are the enjoyers of "sticking it to the man"....lol. Indeed, whistlelowers are useful, necessary and deserve protection, but it seems many people use the logic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to celebrate such deeds.
There is nothing wrong with this...but what irks me is the over-exuberant attitude that "without XYZ whistleblower we would all be lost to deception and cover up". It's a helplessness attitude that requires the average citizen to do nothing, but sit around hoping someone blows a whistle so they can then celebrate their heroism.
I don't like helplessness...so I dislike that attitude.
Anyways- for someone like you and me, the best address to this plausibility issue to realise that using our energy to clamor for truth, or over-celebrate whistleblowers, is a waste of good energy. Otherwise you get these useless blogs about Michael Jackson and Illuminati, and videos of sky gods eating chemtrails, innocent witnesses of shootings suddenly become secret undercover agents- or children of agents, and professionals are either gods with access to truth, or evil illuminati minions with too much influence.
It's so fucked up and gets on my nerves.
Two things are for certain: (1) influential power structures (media, gov't agencies, politicians, CEOs, etc) have so little credibility when it comes to transparency, truth, and protection of justice, that people will believe anything about what they are probably up to; and (2) people are fed up with their current state of living and need some "truth" to liberate them from their uneasy feelings.
===============================
Argument #2: Ignorance can be fed, not created
In the first argument, I basically indicated that it is silly to waste time and energy examining and spreading information about things which are- from our POV- mere speculation....perhaps examination isn't in and of itself a waste, but the spreading of speculative information is. It creates more "noise" and confuses genuine attempts at discovering factual information.
For the second argument I offer a simple perspective about where ignorance comes from. Believing a lie is not something forced upon us. We take risks every time we trust; which is why a betrayal of trust is so personal and disturbing.
Ignorance comes into the picture when we overvalue "our sources" over "other sources" without any good explanation for doing so, albeit familiarity or some other psychological comfort. It's when we close our minds completely because we KNOW our information is superior, when in reality it is only partial, or perhaps not true at all.
The bottom line is, ignorance is a decision- we choose to believe in something based on our assumptions about who is telling the truth, and our lack of critical thinking. There is no way the government or any drug can manufacture that in order to control masses of people.
The most they could do is create a ripe environment for ignorance to exist, and then feed it. It would be a place where information is so scattered, and professionals so corrupt, that it takes exaggerated effort to break out of common/popular thought. A place where the alternative is so radical, most people settle for the comfortable explanation.
At any rate, it encourages inhibition of critical thought, and celebrates each persons position as "innocent bystander". So long as no individual can be blamed, then there is no need to address the issue. Thus oppression, corruption, and injustice are casually shrugged aside each day as each individual feels no connection to it at all.
At the same time, that stuff still exists...and instead of picking up a fucking history book to understand shit, people pick up all kinds of crap spewed at them by conspiracy theorists, politicians, and reputable journalists.
Just feeding ignorance, making it a nice big fat monster.
I dunno if I argued that well... my mom is talking very loudly with the neighbor making it hard to think....so I will just leave this and return later when they aren't talking so loudly.
EDIT: Okay, now that my mom stopped talking loudly...
=======================
Argument #3: Practical steps
So, first I argued that it is implausible to delve too deep into speculation, second I argued that ignorance cannot be manufactured, only fed.
Third, I will present a few practical things we can do to combat ignorance and get away from the helplessness-rooted activities (such as clamouring for truth, praising whistleblowers).
An initial step to take would be to practice critical thinking often. Play devils advocate, and don't automatically dismiss arguments unless you have an empirical reason to do so. It is more likely you will find the truth via multiple sources, than via one.
A second step is to re-examine the ways in which you trust. Trust and respect go hand in hand....if X says so, then do you dismiss it, or give benefit of the doubt? With regards to other POVs, there is always something to learn. Learning requires some degree of trust and respect. So really, what people need is more trust in each other, and less trust of large entities.
Currently the pattern is to over trust a popular idea spewed out by a political party, religion, science foundation, or something...and to dismiss the real-life experience of a neighbor. Why should we put more trust into something removed and inaccessible, than we do in something close and available?
At any rate, it would bring thought from a large-scale conspirators place to a community issues place. Where we really have power is in our own local situation- thats where energy should be put. If we can do that then we won't be as vulnerable to the "conspiracies" in the first place, and they wont even apply.
But of course, its easier to be an innocent bystander.