I'd agree that 1984 references are played out, but also argue that many times they are not wrong. McCarthy was a real gov't official who used the power of the government to ruin real peoples' lives. So was J. Edna Hoover.
Every manner of "conspiracy theorist" has been saying all kinds of similar things for years. Some of them obviously crazy, some of them with lots of rhetoric (but approximately correct), and some of them sounding otherwise quite reasonable. All of them were typically dismissed as "tinfoil hat nutters" by association.
There is the obvious lunatic. Talks about fluoride too much; thinks the gov't might seriously consider using false flag tactics to inflame public opinion and start a war (Operation Northwoods, Vietnam, and possibly every other war since Korea), or at least blame all the bad things on the commies (Operation Mongoose). Also mind control (MKULTRA).
Then the mostly reasonable guy who occasionally gets too excited about the camera on your cell phone, and pretty much every other surveillance camera. Talked about "Echelon" before Wikipedia existed. Was an avionics tech in the Air Force. Says the government has technology you wouldn't believe. He keeps too many emergency rations at his home for someone who isn't a Mormon.
And then the reasonably intelligent person with an over-active imagination. In a casual conversation once you learned that he thinks the Iran Contra affair was a real event in history (lol!), and that he is generally mistrusting of government; you quickly changed the subject. You also once noticed that he keeps a piece of tape over the camera on his laptop. You generally regard him as smart, just naive about the government, ironic that.
> Sometimes I wonder how many conspiracy theorists are actually right,
Given the current facts of the day, isn't it about time to take it upon yourself to investigate some of these claims instead of dismissing them by default?
> just because of pompous, self-righteous, anti-establishment way it is written.
But aren't you actually opposed to this particular establishment? And shouldn't you be? And doesn't your dismissal of the message due to the messenger's rhetorical style play well into the hand of that establishment?
I think that I didn't convey what I meant, so I'm going to re-phrase it a little bit (and also copy to other replies, since apparently I can't edit the comment).
When I see someone referencing 1984, I think of them as conspiracy theorist and don't take them seriously. I do it because I'm an idiot.
But I share this trait with a majority of population. We are born and die idiots. I can't defend the "position" of being an idiot; but that's who I am and I can't change it. Neither can millions of people.
So, if you want to persuade these millions, you have to take their (our) idiocy into account.
Every manner of "conspiracy theorist" has been saying all kinds of similar things for years. Some of them obviously crazy, some of them with lots of rhetoric (but approximately correct), and some of them sounding otherwise quite reasonable. All of them were typically dismissed as "tinfoil hat nutters" by association.
There is the obvious lunatic. Talks about fluoride too much; thinks the gov't might seriously consider using false flag tactics to inflame public opinion and start a war (Operation Northwoods, Vietnam, and possibly every other war since Korea), or at least blame all the bad things on the commies (Operation Mongoose). Also mind control (MKULTRA).
Then the mostly reasonable guy who occasionally gets too excited about the camera on your cell phone, and pretty much every other surveillance camera. Talked about "Echelon" before Wikipedia existed. Was an avionics tech in the Air Force. Says the government has technology you wouldn't believe. He keeps too many emergency rations at his home for someone who isn't a Mormon.
And then the reasonably intelligent person with an over-active imagination. In a casual conversation once you learned that he thinks the Iran Contra affair was a real event in history (lol!), and that he is generally mistrusting of government; you quickly changed the subject. You also once noticed that he keeps a piece of tape over the camera on his laptop. You generally regard him as smart, just naive about the government, ironic that.
> Sometimes I wonder how many conspiracy theorists are actually right,
Given the current facts of the day, isn't it about time to take it upon yourself to investigate some of these claims instead of dismissing them by default?
> just because of pompous, self-righteous, anti-establishment way it is written.
But aren't you actually opposed to this particular establishment? And shouldn't you be? And doesn't your dismissal of the message due to the messenger's rhetorical style play well into the hand of that establishment?