Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (191885)	9/13/2002 12:28:40 PM
From: lisalisalisa	Respond to of 436258

exactly..... the word "conspiracy" has formed such a negative connotation that people think discrediting a scenario is as easily as simply associating it with the phrase "conspiracy theory".... I guess only "politically correct" conspiracies are allowed to exist, such as originations of shadowy boogey men hiding out with the intent of killing Americans (not saying such an organization like that does NOT exist, only that the existence of one is the result of a conspiracy. Labeling it as such does not mean it does NOT exist...if only it were as easy as that)

To: Dave who wrote (191885)	9/13/2002 12:51:00 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Dave, use of the term "conspiracy" has come to connote reductionist thinking, unblinking adherence to ideology, and partisanism. This is unfair. Conspiracies do exist, and have existed in the cases you mentioned. As another example, one of Chomsky's favorite discussion conspiracies is the case (a legitimate one, but established in a civil court, not a criminal court - the difference is critical) of automobile manufacturers and oil companies colluding to block the spread of public transportation. These conspiracies deserve to be brought into the open. Journalistic standards need to be observed to do this correctly. This means that there is a process that must be strictly observed for gathering and verifying facts. Unfortunately, many journalists do not follow this process, and become rumormongers, shills, or dupes for people like Chomsky. I think that Chomsky does in fact engage in reductionist thinking, unblinking adherence to ideology, and partisanism. The method of "relational analysis" precludes the scrutiny of his thesis, by his own claim! He thereby hurts the cause of uncovering conspiracies. Just read Rethinking Camelot. Even a Chomsky admirer would not claim that book to be his finest moment. I'm not afraid of the truth, hurt though it may, and even if it comes from someone like Chomsky. Chomsky is influential among the left (to its detriment), but his methods are deeply flawed. I realize that none of my arguments will matter to someone who agrees with Chomsky. Case in point.