I heard it more often about prejudices. But recently I heard it about conspiracy theories.
Today I read an article on the Epstein files in Der Spiegel. The magazine does a disastrous job when it comes to conspiracy theories. It denies every single one of them. And if one of them turns out to be true they are even wrong when covering it. I read an article about the Epstein files and I could not grasp how wrong they were. They called the actions of the Trump administration a proof for maximum transparency. So it is maximum transparency deleting files related to Trump after they released them. Without mentioning a reason?
I had a debate with a friend today who is annoyed by some family members who talked too much about conspiracy theories. And arguibly I think they believed a lot of bullshit. But his take everyone who believes conspiracy theories lacks ambiguity tolerance and was brainwashed isn't nuanced. In my opinion this is also of proof for the lack of ambiguity tolerance.
I studied politics at the university. And I think most lecturers were against all conspiracy theories. One of them used the lab theory as proof for absurd conspiracy theories after US intelligence services considered it very likely to be true. I think some see conspiracy theories as anti-intellectualism. I can remember where a conspiracy head talked in a lecture like a waterfall about vaccines. It was so fucking cringe. He couldn't stop talking about them.
My take is: comparing people who only believe conspiracy theories and people who mostly read mainstream press the latter one's come closer to reality. Though, I think the way the media reports about stories is still very biased, distorted and you won't get the full picture. The way media reports is skewed and often gets it wrong. But you won't believe in lizard, vaccines that implant microchips etc.
I think there is a lot of talk about conspiracy theories due to the Epstein files. It is ironic Qanon spreaded theories about pedophile elites. And it turned out their guy Trump was among them. So there was at least some skewed truth in it.
They said vaccines had no side effects. At least in my country. It turned out a small percentage got long covid through them. It was more likely to get it through covid itself. And I would take the shot again. But doctors were scared to talk about this because they were afraid being called a conspiracy theorist.
A friend mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theories. I said something like the crisis actor conspiracy theories are absurd. And people like Alex Jones rather deflect from real conspiracy theories (like his reporting on the Trump/Epstein relation). I think an inside job is very unlikely but not impossible. Maybe the small truth is: US intelligence services profited from the attacks and used them for their agenda. They creared a surveillance state and mass surveillance. Things that turned out to be true eventually.
For the moon landing I have no core truth. But I don't know the theory enough. For flat earth I used an argument of the philsopher Markus Gabriel it is real in our imagination and stories like Santa Clause therefore it exists. But I think his argument is more intricate. The lizard theory is end game bullshit.
Now to the second question. I heard this quite often that there is a core truth for every prejudice. My first instinct was this is totally wrong and only ignorant people think that. I think Slavoj Ziziek used a very specific example in RT Russia show about fake news.
I should go to sleep soon. I will use an AI summary to give you an overview alternatively you can simply watch the video.
The Illusion of Fact-Based Truth
Žižek argues that the most dangerous form of "Fake News" is not based on invented facts, but on selective truth. He posits that a report consisting entirely of verifiable, accurate data can still function as a profound lie.
The Example of Pre-Nazi Germany
He provides a provocative example regarding antisemitic propaganda in Germany before Hitler's rise to power:
Following a psychoanalytic logic, Žižek concludes that the crucial question is not "Is it true?" but "Why are you telling this story in this specific way?". He criticizes "naive positivism"—the belief that simply reporting facts is enough—because the way we organize and prioritize those facts is always influenced by an underlying ideological standpoint.
Today I read an article on the Epstein files in Der Spiegel. The magazine does a disastrous job when it comes to conspiracy theories. It denies every single one of them. And if one of them turns out to be true they are even wrong when covering it. I read an article about the Epstein files and I could not grasp how wrong they were. They called the actions of the Trump administration a proof for maximum transparency. So it is maximum transparency deleting files related to Trump after they released them. Without mentioning a reason?
I had a debate with a friend today who is annoyed by some family members who talked too much about conspiracy theories. And arguibly I think they believed a lot of bullshit. But his take everyone who believes conspiracy theories lacks ambiguity tolerance and was brainwashed isn't nuanced. In my opinion this is also of proof for the lack of ambiguity tolerance.
I studied politics at the university. And I think most lecturers were against all conspiracy theories. One of them used the lab theory as proof for absurd conspiracy theories after US intelligence services considered it very likely to be true. I think some see conspiracy theories as anti-intellectualism. I can remember where a conspiracy head talked in a lecture like a waterfall about vaccines. It was so fucking cringe. He couldn't stop talking about them.
My take is: comparing people who only believe conspiracy theories and people who mostly read mainstream press the latter one's come closer to reality. Though, I think the way the media reports about stories is still very biased, distorted and you won't get the full picture. The way media reports is skewed and often gets it wrong. But you won't believe in lizard, vaccines that implant microchips etc.
I think there is a lot of talk about conspiracy theories due to the Epstein files. It is ironic Qanon spreaded theories about pedophile elites. And it turned out their guy Trump was among them. So there was at least some skewed truth in it.
They said vaccines had no side effects. At least in my country. It turned out a small percentage got long covid through them. It was more likely to get it through covid itself. And I would take the shot again. But doctors were scared to talk about this because they were afraid being called a conspiracy theorist.
A friend mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theories. I said something like the crisis actor conspiracy theories are absurd. And people like Alex Jones rather deflect from real conspiracy theories (like his reporting on the Trump/Epstein relation). I think an inside job is very unlikely but not impossible. Maybe the small truth is: US intelligence services profited from the attacks and used them for their agenda. They creared a surveillance state and mass surveillance. Things that turned out to be true eventually.
For the moon landing I have no core truth. But I don't know the theory enough. For flat earth I used an argument of the philsopher Markus Gabriel it is real in our imagination and stories like Santa Clause therefore it exists. But I think his argument is more intricate. The lizard theory is end game bullshit.
Now to the second question. I heard this quite often that there is a core truth for every prejudice. My first instinct was this is totally wrong and only ignorant people think that. I think Slavoj Ziziek used a very specific example in RT Russia show about fake news.
I should go to sleep soon. I will use an AI summary to give you an overview alternatively you can simply watch the video.
The Illusion of Fact-Based Truth
Žižek argues that the most dangerous form of "Fake News" is not based on invented facts, but on selective truth. He posits that a report consisting entirely of verifiable, accurate data can still function as a profound lie.
The Example of Pre-Nazi Germany
He provides a provocative example regarding antisemitic propaganda in Germany before Hitler's rise to power:
- Selective Data: A writer could compile a book on "Jewish influence" in Germany, citing accurate statistics showing that Jews held a high percentage of positions in banking, journalism, and art criticism.
- The Deceptive Narrative: Even if every single statistic in that book is true ("no fake news" in the literal sense), the work remains fundamentally a lie because of its antisemitic intention.
- The Mechanism of the Lie: The lie is created by the way the author selects certain facts while ignoring others. By isolating specific data points to create a "manufactured narrative," the truth is weaponized to support a predetermined ideological conclusion.
Following a psychoanalytic logic, Žižek concludes that the crucial question is not "Is it true?" but "Why are you telling this story in this specific way?". He criticizes "naive positivism"—the belief that simply reporting facts is enough—because the way we organize and prioritize those facts is always influenced by an underlying ideological standpoint.
Last edited:
