"Free Speech", "Conspiracy Theories"
We were gifted with a technology we simply didn't have thirty years ago, viz a vis, the internet. By
2004 a platform called Facebook (an intel agent data-gathering invention, but I digress) allowed people to share both cat pictures and lightning-rod political views alike. At its worst, now, Facebook can become a war zone of "utterly opposing" views. Where, person X can state his facts to the left and person Y can state his/her facts to the R. Absent the nuances of tone of voice, body language, the language of the eyes, and more.... such text-only "conversations" often (not always) descend into gridlock, neither side "listening" to the other. It doesn't matter how many links from "credible sources" are posted to support a point of view, it's "nuh, nuh nuh". And might we mention 1. common-sense and 2. my own ability to 'critical think' and decide like an adult? Those get short shrift as well. What makes you think YOU're intelligent enough to decide for yourself (whether or not to wear a mask while walking in the park, for example). LOL, but seriously. A delicate concept called "respect" is a frequent victim in this kind of
environment too.
The most dis-ingenuous handle of all is, of course, "Conspiracy Theorist", a meaningless slur that attempts to discredit a point of view or a set of facts. To he who shouts "conspiracy theorist!", no number of hefty "credible titles" attached to the name of the owner of some, ahem, "contraversial views" will sway him. This guy - this military doctor with thirty years of service under his belt and experience in epidemiology and virology, for example - is a "conspiracy theorist"! I love the simple questions like "and, what would be gained by this doctor, or this other professional, putting his career
at risk (perhaps his very life) by broadcasting his "contraversial views" in absolute opposition to his profession (the majority of whose members remain mum, to keep their salaries safe)?" Does anyone seriously think it's fun to be ridiculed and lambasted? So, the premise that Conspiracy Theorist X or Y
is doing it "for the attention" for example, is ludicrous. Book sales? Books don't sell much these days. The more believable reason might just be "for the greater good". To inform the public.
Another "good one" is how "dangerous" Conspiracy Theorists get de-platformed, i.e. banned from YouTube, Google, and Facebook. Algorhythms get played with so they can't be found. Smart question: WHY would these trillion dollar enterprises bother to ban an idiot conspiracy theorist with the mealy claim that he's "dangerous"? If so and so is an idiot, let him carry on with his views, everyone knows he's an idiot, right? The obvious reason is that the views are, yes, dangerous alright. Dangerous to the tyrranical hold of those who have the public in their grip with particular narratives about how things are. "They" - and yes, it's never certain who "they" are, by name - don't want their control threatened. And, haven't we seen that "control" exercised big time, in 2020?! "Everyone to their rooms!" Globally. 17,000 jet airplanes parked. Thousands of hotels empty. 33 million unemployed in the US. And much more. That's some level of control.
It's a not very well known fact that the term Conspiracy Theory was invented by the CIA as a means of "dis-info" - ing things they needed to be dis-creditted, i.e., kept from the public. It's called psychology. You either actively put something out there or let someone else do it for you, and quickly label it a conspiracy theory. Repeat repeat repeat.... and before you know it, any story that's called - by any journalist anywhere, any time - a "conspiracy theory" is, guess what, considered to be a conspiracy theory. That pretty darned important story, which would certainly scare the horses if believed by enough people, is suddenly dis-empowered. The result is that large numbers of the public, most of whom have neither the time nor the interest to investigate matters on their own (utilizing this wonderful technology of computers and internet) end up going "oh, that's some conspiracy theory...everyone knows that!"
So, "free speech"? Some say speech shouldn't be "free" if it .... here we go ... offends, upsets, endangers .... others. If a doctor (using that "model" again) with experience going back to actively co-developing a cure for AIDS, in the 80's, claims that wearing a mask (using that "model" again, LOL) is not only USELESS, but actually DANGEROUS because it a) reduced oxygen and b) would make an ill person possibly recycle their own bacteria/virusses (in stead of breathing in and out as God intended) wouldn't you PAY ATTENTION? Or would the better response be "he/she's a freaking Conspiracy Theorist!"
Another consideration when looking at these examples of de-platforming (a fun newspeak term for "censoring") so-called contraversial commentators, is "qui bono?"/"who benefits?". Most things in the modern world are figured out with the tenet of "follow the money". Hugely moneyed enterprises DO NOT LIKE IT when on-going profits are threatened by some rogue "conspiracy guy". Moneyed enterprises like Big Government, Big Med (the industrial medical complex), and their many associated friends. "It's not that hard" to work out. And so, who then do I believe, when it comes to opposing stories - when I ALREADY HAD SERIOUS DOUBTS about this or that thing?
Exhibit A: the popular narrative, with much riding on its continuation, including the status quo, votes for politicians, on-going profits for the Big Guys, etcetera, or Exhibit B: the "conspiracy theory" guy who's putting his career/life at risk with astounding new information and who I just learnt has been de-platformed, after getting half a million YouTube views? Answer: first thing I'd do is at the very least have an Open Mind. I'd probably look closer, do a little digging. Who is this guy again? "Not hard". Ooh, I see this doctor IS actually registered at such n such an erstwhile medical facility, too. And so on and so on ...
I'm deliberately not going to name names because of, yes, the power of the "conspiracy theory!" handle.
And the power of immediate discreditting of person X or Y... because that discreditting WENT VIRAL.
Everyone "got on board", mostly without listening to that person, of course. It makes it impossible to evaluate a person's information, views, facts, data, history and much more, including - how's this one - HOW HE/SHE PRESENTS, and "what he/she certainly seems to be like"......when that person's NAME is slurred with the derogatory accusation.
This is precisely how EFFECTIVE the C.T. handle/slur is, see?!
"Oh, HIM??! he's a conspiracy theorist!!"
"Ever listened to him, IN DETAIL?"
"No, he's a bloody conspiracy theorist!"
"So, you don't actually know, IN DETAIL, what he's got to say?"
"No, I won't waste my time, he's a conspiracy theorist!".
"So, you didn't read the carefully curated quotes I sent you to try and
make it easy to see what he is ACTUALLY saying?"
"No!"
"Right...."
Gridlock. End of sensible exchange. So, we don't really have Free Speech, not at all. If we care about that, we need to keep on about the matter. It would be nice if we can work out a way to respect others' views in the process. In the domains of Big Government, it's a bit much to expect that that is realistic, but perhaps between us citizens, we can work towards the goal.