[dragonwriter]

> It's for example a conspiracy theory to simply note that buildings don't just fall into themselves because of office furniture fires, but it's not a conspiracy theory to believe Saddam is about to unleash WMD without even being able to name what he'd gain from it. It doesn't take genius to note that the deciding factor is not how realistic or dumb fucking stupid something is, or even physically possible for that matter, but wether it goes against or with power.

Well, yeah, the phrase "conspiracy theory" refers to a theory that involves a massive conspiracy among the power elites to keep the truth about some important thing from the public.

So, yeah, the claims about Saddam's WMD's weren't a conspiracy theory, they were just lies by those in power (an accurate description of the nature and motivation of those claims would have been a conspiracy theory, which demonstrates also that "conspiracy theory" and "false" aren't the same thing.)

[PavlovsCat]

One thing I find helpful to keep in mind that if you hang a wall full of analog clocks, they will synchronize. That's just what happens, without any of the clocks ever formulating a plan and the rest agreeing to it.

In the same way, it's just common sense that powerful entities, while also competing with each other, synchronize in keeping the unwashed masses in check. If ants can do it, so can people. That in itself doesn't make any old claim valid, but it means looking out for signs of such "unspoken conspiracy" is simply paying attention instead of acting like a goldfish (by which I don't mean to diss goldfish, just trying to make a point).

I expect snow in winter; that doesn't mean I may claim rain is snow, but it means I wont stare for 30 minutes when it does start snowing, and wonder what all the white stuff is. It also means I sometimes get irritated with people who do.

Yes, there are nutty theories and nutty claims. But they are so in their own right, not "because it's a conspiracy theory". This is exactly as logically valid as saying "that's a Jewish-sounding argument", to Godwin this thing for good measure.

Not that you don't know all of this, I just felt like rambling a bit. HN prides itself in having argument instead of memes, but it's still tinfoil this and tinfoil that without even blushing sometimes, which is the lolcat of the domesticated pseudo-intellectual if you ask me.

[liberte9]

A wall of analog clocks will synchronize? Elaborate?

[PavlovsCat]

I'm sorry, I meant the really old style analog clocks with a pendulum. After a while, they will swing in unison.

http://www.math.kyushu-u.ac.jp/eng/pages/laboratory04.html

Technically, they do "talk" to each other: "the two pendulums would exert a force on each other through minute vibrations in the wall". I would argue humans do the same. And not just "the" powerful either, everybody does. Sometimes for fun, sometimes for gain, sometimes just to be social, but hardly ever with a clearly formulated "plan", or meetings in dimly lit rooms. That's just not necessary when you already noticed you're in agreement with someone about crucial things, simply because you're both doing them.

Also, it's perfectly normal for people to "conspire" to do something without any of them even reflecting on what they're doing individually, much less as a group. It's possible to work in unison towards a common goal without even being consciously aware of that. Kinda like a flock of birds, or pendulum clocks :P