You remember the scene in Apocalypse Now when Colonel Kurtz mumbles his story? You may remember leaning forward, straining to hear him – only to realize with a cold thrill that what he is saying is insane. Conspiracy theorists are like that. If you’re not careful, you find yourself being slowly drawn into their world, either accepting their ideas or arguing with them. The result is the same, regardless of whether you’re face to face or on IRC or email — either way, you lose.
Recently, I forgot that simple axiom, until I brought myself up with a start. I won’t mention the people in question, because I don’t want to dignify their antics with more attention. But, while the experience is still fresh in my mind, here are some of the signs that should put you on your guard:
- An obsession about a single person, corporation, or issue to the exclusion of everything else: Conspiracy theorists will spend an inordinate amount of time researching and blogging about the object of their obsession. Although Microsoft is a favorite object of free software conspiracy theorists, I’ve also come across people with an obsession against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, or even a particular project, such as KDE or GNOME. But, no matter what topics a discussion with them begins with, they will always find a way to bring up their obsession, often straining to do so. At the first hint of news, they will rush to blog about it, filling in gaps with speculation.
- Extreme paranoia directed at the object of the obsession: The object of the obsession is viewed as vastly more powerful than the free software community. It is conceived as moving constantly in the shadows, recruiting dupes, spreading money when it has some and laying long range plans to subvert some or all of the community. Sometimes, these plans may make direct business sense, but, just as often, they are for dubious benefits. Should the object of the obsession deny an accusation, the conspiracy theorists simply regard the denial as a sign of how clever the enemy is.
- An either / or mindset: For conspiracy theorists, no middle ground exists. Unless you are in complete agreement with them, you are in the enemy camp – and probably in the enemy pay. Even an attempt to qualify their argument will mark you as part of the problem. So will suggesting that they work to change or influence the object of the obsession where that is possible. The conspiracy theorist’s identity is bound up with being in opposition to the object of their obsession that anything except whole-hearted hatred is unacceptable to them. Key phrases: “There can be no truce with [insert object of obsession here]” and “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”
- An inability to summarize other viewpoints with any accuracy: Convinced that they are on the right side, the average conspiracy theorist is either unable or unwilling to report other people’s ideas with any accuracy. Instead, they seem to report what they imagine others are saying, or is convenient to believe that others are saying.
- A refusal to modify opinions, even in light of new evidence: Conspiracy theorists’ beliefs are so important to them that to change them would risk losing identity. So they don’t, ever. When offered new information that might challenge their basic position, they will either try to discredit it or change the subject immediately, perhaps raising a peripherally related point but not addressing the new information.
- The use of decontextualized evidence: Conspiracy theorists see information that supports their central belief, and are prone to miss information that challenges or contradicts it. They will take a phrase out of context – for instance, take a comment on a technical issue to be about a political one — or even ignore basic grammar such as the serial comma in order to find support for their beliefs.
- A refusal to consider alternate explanations: Coincidence, circumstance, and human stupidity do not exist for the conspiracy theorist. For this reason, they make no effort to discount them, not even to strengthen their own arguments. The one explanation that conspiracy theorists accept is malevolence.
- A lack of civility and a quickness to give and take offense: The free software community is not the politest place in the world. However, even by its standard, conspiracy theorists are abusive. They’re quick to hurl insults, or to take insults personally. Their writing leaves an impression of emotion held barely in check, the words rushing out of them as fast as they can manage in their anger.
- A disregard for the rules of evidence: The wise pundit looks for evidence that would hold up in a court of law – that is, establish a point beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, conspiracy theorists have no such restraint. For instance, if a company has hired a former Microsoft executive, that is proof that the company is controlled by Microsoft. Never mind that Microsoft is so large that any North American company has a good chance of hiring a former Microsoft executive – the one tenuous connection is enough to establish proof for a conspiracy theorist. Key phrase: “Can it be coincidence that . . . ?” (Sometimes, yes)
- A scattergun approach to evidence: Instead of building up an argument point by point, conspiracy theorists tend to bury you in a random collection of related facts. They can take this approach, because their obsession causes them to have hundred of points ready at any given point. But instead of the rational building of an argument, the result is not logical persuasion, but an impressionistic, often highly emotional view of the situation.
- A lack of self-reflection: Many of the sort of people I’m talking about know that “conspiracy theory” can be negative term, and are insulted if you apply it to them. However they don’t have the least idea of why it is appropriately applied to them. Accuse them of paranoia, and they will explain that they are only be sensible, and everyone else is living in a fool’s paradise. Suggest they have a cavalier attitude to evidence, and they’ll say much the same same. Don’t expect a sense of humor, either – that’s usually lost with the self-reflection. If they call you a “Microsoft shill” and you ask, “Where can I send an invoice?” they’ll assume you’ve just revealed your true allegiance, not that you’re making a joke.
This isn’t a pop quiz of the “Should you quit your job?” or “Which Tolkien character are you like?” variety, and still less a guideline to psychiatric assessment, so I can’t tell you exactly how many of these behaviors are needed to diagnosis someone as a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I’m tempted simply to say that, when you meet one, you’ll know. Still, the more of these traits you see, the greater the likelihood that you’re dealing with a conspiracy theorist. If you see more than half, then the likelihood becomes a near-certainty.
And then what should you do? The problem is nicely summarized by two verses of Proverbs 26. The first is: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” The second is: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”. In other words, you don’t want to be dragged down to a conspiracy theorist’s own level, but you don’t want them to continue unchallenged and perhaps convince others who aren’t paying enough attention to realize the kind of person they are facing.
Answering is always tempting, but you have to put a limit on your answers. Whenever I receive comments on an article I’ve published, with few exceptions I restrict myself to two exchanges, regardless of whether I’m dealing with a conspiracy theorist or not. That way, I show politeness and respect to someone who has taken the trouble to contact me, but I don’t use up all my spare time in answering people. If your time is valuable, you might want to do the same.
However, you should also bear in mind that you can’t win. Try to refute a conspiracy theorist, and you simply prove to them that you’re the enemy. In the end, the best thing you can do for yourself – to say nothing of free software – is to stop responding to the conspiracy theorist as soon as you realize the type of person you’re dealing with. The time you spend dealing with a conspiracy theorist will be put to much better use writing code, persuading a friend to try free software or dealing with the real threats to the community instead of the imaginary ones.
Bruce:
Excellent article combined with excellent wisdom!
Being involved in the GNOME and Mono projects which are constantly under attack by conspiracy theorists, I can appreciate what you’ve said.
One thing you forgot to mention, though, is that another reason you should avoid engaging in a debate with a conspiracy theorist is that they tend to believe that even if you prove them wrong on one point, that it somehow makes all of their other points valid because you haven’t taken the time to prove those to be invalid as well. It doesn’t matter to them that the reason you can’t disprove all of their points is simply a matter of not having the time nor desire to spend every waking minute of every day researching their claims in order to refute them.
I guess that sort of ties back into the fact that the way they “win” is that they simply overwhelm their audience with so much crap that it is impossible to refute them, even if everything they claim to be true can be proven false if one where to actually research each of the claims.
Another common strategy for conspiracy theorists is circular logic:
“God exists because the Bible says and the Bible is the infallible word of God.”
Thanks for both the article and the wisdom.
[…] Published 03 一月 08 06:54 下午 | Monologue Bruce Byfield has made a recent post entitled Conspiracy theorists and free software.Bruce, I absolutely agree with […]
Bruce stated:
> Conspiracy theorists will spend an inordinate amount of time
> researching and blogging about the object of their
> obsession.
I think you give them too much credit, Bruce. They don’t typically research at all, for if they did, they’d find that their theories don’t make any sense.
What they do instead is scan over sound bites that have a negative overtone in favor of their own biased view and then take that sound bite and present it as fact or, at the very least, supporting evidence.
John
Er, I missed your “The use of decontextualized evidence” point somehow.
I guess you can disregard my previous comment other than as a +1 vote agreeing with your overall article.
John
It is curious how paranoia seems such a major gene in the make-up of not just FLOSS advocates but computer scientists/engineers in general… It’s obvious that a moderate amount can lead to great success, particularly in security-related areas, so the question becomes how do we as a community immune ourselves from the worst aspects of this paranoia? It’s an interesting sociological dilemma that I certainly don’t have any answers for, but I do experience it daily…
Speaking as a Software Engineer myself (so not meant as a bash against computer scientists/engineers), we are generally a socially inept breed. Perhaps this plays a role in the “paranoia gene”.
Just a thought… I too run into people all the time in this field who get way into conspiracy theories and paranoia. It just boggles my mind.
Then again, seeing as how I’m a social misfit – perhaps I’m just not getting out enough into non-computer-geek circles to notice that this phenomenon is common everywhere?
*shrug*
Looking forward to the sequel entitled “Conspiracy Practitioners and Proprieatry Software” as you’ve only touched on half of the story so far. I’d like to read again the statements of Gates and Ballmer, the name calling – Communism, etc. – what Ballmer said about burying the guy from Google, the “Get The Facts” campaign, the “bake me a cake” studies, the patent suit threats and stuff like that – put in the proper perspective only you can so eloquently cover.
Sid:
Why should I mention things that anyone interested in reading this blog entry already knows?
Besides, I can only affect what proprietary software companies do with difficulty. I have a far better chance of making sure that free software isn’t represented by nonsense.
Good points but remember that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. For every wacko conspiracy theorist there are just as many people that’ll do anything to turn a blind eye rather than deal with stuff.
MikeFM:
I don’t think you need to worry about people in the free software community turning a blind eye. But you can be wary of Microsoft without spending every waking moment on guard, and disapprove of GNOME’s involvement with OOXML without insisting on conspiracy theories.
The classical writers pointed out the basic forms of faulty reasoning and dishonest argument two millennium ago. When you see them over-represented in a particular strain of work, you can usually conclude that the strain is only accidentally in touch with reality.
Bruce, your words of wisdom are not a ticket to “rightdom” on whatever topic you pick. I think there is a place for arguments for a very good reason. And on public forums there is hardly the excuse for those (in the aggregate) that have a particular viewpoint to say they don’t want to waste time since the task can be shared. Further, harmonizing things earlier rather than later should always be a goal as time is saved long term. Do you want to build a town on deficient infrastructure specifications? I think such mistakes could make many lives very uncomfortable in the future.
Anyway, you weren’t very specific in this post, so I won’t attempt to argue specifics here.
Interesting post – Conspiracy Theorists and free software
Here is an interesting post on the prevalence (or at least existence) of conspiracy-theory-types within the free software movement (actually, they exist within any community). However, this article points out something which I have said before, which i…
The problem with this kind of blanket statement is that it’s very difficult to tell from the outside where you draw the line. This could be construed as a very reasonable comment. Or it could be construed equally validly as an example of conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists. It all depends on just how wide a net you’re throwing here.
And many reasonable people may be tempted to conclude essentially the latter, simply because there is a fair amount of quite genuine propaganda, dirty tactics and so on in the business world, and the major firm threatened by the idea of Linux spreading is quite genuinely very wealthy and given to dirty, sometimes illegal, tricks. That firm genuinely does buy a lot of advertising and a fair amount of PR, so that one way or another many tech commentators have a vested interest in its continued success. These tech commentators spend a good deal of time bemoaning those awful Linux zealots and their foolish conspiracy theories etc. etc., and would include under the heading “conspiracy theories” many theses that I, and indeed you, might consider so well-documented as to be self-evidently true. Unfortunately anyone who mocks “conspiracy theories” in a Linux context is going to sound superficially a lot like that chorus.
You’ve made yourself sound as if you’re saying “Anyone who points out an agenda or conflict of interest or lie is a frothing loonie”, even if that’s not what you’re saying at all. I’ve seen some good articles you’ve written so I doubt that’s your intent, but on balance I’m not convinced this article is helpful.
Take for instance the recent vote, narrowly lost by the OOXML side, on whether to confirm OOXML as a standard. There seems pretty strong evidence that Microsoft used a number of dirty tricks to monkeywrench the ISO proceedings in ways basically unprecedented for that organization. Does talking about that evidence constitute “conspiracy theory”? I would argue that anyone answering “yes” and refusing to budge is showing evidence of precisely your signs of being a conspiracy theorist–about conspiracy theorists! That is, they see conspiracy theorists where there are only people looking at evidence, and cannot be moved from their ideas by reason or evidence.
I can’t tell from the article itself what your position on the subject would be. But the nature of the article basically tends to quell inquiry–although it doesn’t say so outright, the general tenor is that if you point out wrongdoing, you should be ridiculed. I think you would have done better to take a more careful tone. Your “we’ll all know them when we see them” approach seems a bit cocky and triumphalist. The people who agree with me are right, and everyone else is a wingnut.
nice points to remember. If I go by these points, some of my posts fall under the conspiracy theorist category. hmm..
Actually, I should not have appeared to have agreed. Your points are very vague since you can label anyone a conspiracy theorists. People generally disagree because they have a mismatch in information to which they are privy.
>> An obsession about a single person, corporation, or issue to the exclusion of everything else:
Does this describe any human being on earth? “At the exclusion of everything else?” Please. When you are this vague, maybe I should not be surprised that you or anyone in particular would fail to understand some issue or other.
>> Conspiracy theorists will spend an inordinate amount of time researching and blogging about the object of their obsession.
Oh, well, a lot of people just fell out of contention. It’s actually not very difficult to find out about a lot of stuff from the daily news, discussions on the daily news, and the occasional researching when challenged or to see what those presenting the opposite side of an argument want you to read or look up.
Yes, some have accumulated a lot of information over the many years Microsoft has been in court. Sue them.
>> But, no matter what topics a discussion with them begins with, they will always find a way to bring up their obsession, often straining to do so.
It’s not a sin to be defensive. It’s human nature. Naturally, a person that has done a lot of research on something and that is affected may bring something up rather frequently as judged by someone that isn’t bothered too much by such a thing. This happens everyday. We are all guilty in someone else’s eyes.
For me, I am a big fan of prevention. We all are. When I didn’t see Microsoft as a serious thing (eg, when I hardly knew them) I didn’t fret. Now I do care what goes on in certain parts of the industry. I’ll wager a bet that you don’t see the computing platforms as nearly a big a deal as I do. And I am mostly referring to the lowest layers which are monopolized. Everything above such a layer is compromisable at the will of those underneath if they left any sort of hook (even accidently). And accidents are very common when you institute certain policies.
Anyone that works to help Microsoft to a very significant extent to retain their traction, however much such actions may be understood from the pov of the families being “fed,” are working against me. I make my position clear, and I work against that. If the families involve on the other side don’t want to hedge and want to bet the farm, I can’t do very much for them. But I doubt very many on any side of an issue is betting the farm. Farms are not that commonly gambled in practice.
In any case, there really is not much to argue about when it comes to whom I decide to patron. As they say, it’s my prerogative.. I mean certainly I don’t think anyone expects (eg) me to disregard my family and well-being. Or for that matter the well-being, as I see it, of people I care about.
Look, many Microsoft and (eg) Novell employees probably will have much more to live off when they “retire” than I currently have. And should that not be the case some day, it likely will be the case for many others.
So do as you wish, but you are naive if you think people like myself are going to let actions we think are detrimental to things we care about go unchallenged, whether through words or through deeds.
I might also suggest you try to at least be able to argue down other people even if you choose not to engage them publicly. That’s because building a messed up city can be costly in terms of many resources down the line. If you can’t argue down you don’t really know.
And I am not implying anything specific. For all I know, we agree a lot more than we disagree, but I do take objection to your comments, as I know they can be “applied” to me.
>> Extreme paranoia directed at the object of the obsession
I could tell you personal stories where I was accused of this [that’s a figure of speech]. I won’t, but needless to say, in the end, some things you can just ignore and leave behind, but others you can’t as they impact your future no matter how much you wish to ignore them.
>> The object of the obsession is viewed as vastly more powerful than the free software community.
If you are referring to Microsoft you are being naive. Microsoft’s major goal since day 1 back decades ago has been to get developers developers developers developers on their corner. That is crucial to them maintaining a lock, and yes, despite it all, FOSS developers are developers, too.
And the best kind of help is free help where you don’t have to spend a dime. If MS spent dimes on such matters, they wouldn’t be where they are today. For free, they get devs to code to their specs. It’s amazing. Rats and snakes are amazing creatures, indeed.
>> It is conceived as moving constantly in the shadows, recruiting dupes, spreading money when it has some and laying long range plans to subvert some or all of the community. Sometimes, these plans may make direct business sense, but, just as often, they are for dubious benefits. Should the object of the obsession deny an accusation, the conspiracy theorists simply regard the denial as a sign of how clever the enemy is.
If you are referring to Microsoft, you have not been studying history or human nature.
They don’t have to do this directly. Really, Microsoft has power. When someone has power, they don’t have to give or offer very much. It’s understood that if you do a good enough job, they would be fools to help you. And does Microsoft have loot to boot!
And there is also the tendency for many to want to get on the side they think might win, even if that side might not be the most principled. After all, we all have mouths to feed, and if possible, yachts to take for a spin.
Anyway, we can focus on actions, not on people. If you want, invoke something like this against the part of the argument where those arguing against you invoke others by name, but you would be foolish to use the fact they named others to mean the rest of their argument is worthless. I truly think you are being short-sighted if you use that excuse.
>> An either / or mindset
I have a lot of either ors. Either I am moving forward or I am moving backwards. I can do both sometimes, but certainly there are contexts under which either .. or.
Anyway, despite all the gray matter, I have so many black and whites that I’d bog down the blog just listing a fraction. I’ll spare your hosting provider.
>> The conspiracy theorist’s identity is bound up with being in opposition to the object of their obsession that anything except whole-hearted hatred is unacceptable to them.
Whole-hearted hatred is a very powerful accusation. Also, keep in mind that corporations are not human beings.. or fauna (or flora.. (or bacteria…))))))))))))) (print “done”) (end eval-loop)) for that matter. Meanwhile, I am and so are my family and friends. And if push came to shove (not that this is relevant here but might as well say it) the ability to put a bread on one’s plate trumps the ability to put a third yacht on one’s lake.
>> An inability to summarize other viewpoints with any accuracy
You can be the judge should you ever be in that position.
>> [blah blah.. basically so more of the same for a few paragraphs with few juicy morsels I can latch on to]
>> A lack of civility and a quickness to give and take offense
Now wait a minute! Look… Well… OK. Now, I’ve had enough… just kidding. I would not leave before getting to the rest of the comment.
>> A disregard for the rules of evidence
One thing to note here. I will not fail to prepare and argue and plan until I have seen “proof.”
What you see is a lot of work to deflect potentially heavy artillery attacks. What I’d guess you have yet to see is anyone assault Mount Redmond from the land, air, sea, and space.
We’re currently holding that off to somewhere beyond plan N.
>> Still, the more of these traits you see, the greater the likelihood that you’re dealing with a conspiracy theorist.
Is that what the Redmond folks told you to say?
Seriously…
..this is a weak logical attempt to “defeat” the opposition. I’ve never seen this argument employed by someone interested in arriving at the truth (but my eyes are bad sometimes).
On the other hand, it’s a great argument to use for someone that wants to avoid getting all logical and stuff with details. Some call it shooting the messenger.
>> However, you should also bear in mind that you can’t win. Try to refute a conspiracy theorist, and you simply prove to them that you’re the enemy. In the end, the best thing you can do for yourself – to say nothing of free software – is to stop responding to the conspiracy theorist as soon as you realize the type of person you’re dealing with.
I do appreciate that you care about the individual. I think that might be what you are saying, that sometimes, we can’t help everyone out. But I hope you aren’t saying that third party opinion is not important or that a point can’t be made even if the primary opposing debater fails to see your view.
One more thing. Some or a lot of people are becoming skeptical of GNOME because of the growth of mono on distros that tend to use that platform as well as the openness and naivite towards “interoperating” with Microsoft in fronts such as OOXML. Mono spreading through FOSS, if you don’t mind me saying, helps Microsoft, meaning it helps Microsoft stay powerful and in control. What I would consider to be a proper use of a dotnet clone would be offered as an alternative in-house to desperate souls. In fact, mono should be developed by desperate souls trying to escape (if you care that Jose_X not object). To actually have people encourage those that don’t do dotnet to do so as Miguel and others have done for years now.. well, it makes me wonder what their desperation is all about.
“Ka-shing, fourth yacht” comes to mind.. Let me go plan some more…
Oh, and I can end with some advice of my own. I hope you wouldn’t trust me if I had back-stabbed you repeatedly in the past. If you do, however, have I got a deal for you! Follow me this way.. er, “after you, friend.”
“The problem with this kind of blanket statement is that it’s very difficult to tell from the outside where you draw the line.”
It’s only difficult if you choose to make it a philosophical point. An argument that is full of fallacies — which is what I suggest a conspiracy theory is — is extremely unlikely to be true because it only relates well to events by ignoring and misrepresenting things.
As for the suggestion that you’ll know conspiracy theorists when you see them, your interpretation is out of context. Note that I say “I am tempted to say” that — not that I am saying that. Note, too, that this comment follows a detailed description of the traits by which you can identify the sort of argument I’m talking about.
Unlike a conspiracy theory, my claim can be tested. Try it out against real world examples, and see if it’s useful in determining the sort of behavior I’m talking about. If not, then what I say can be safely rejected.
Rufus, you put very well what some of us think. I was torn between giving benefit of the doubt to the author (and letting the comments slide) or tearing down the points at least to some extent (and in a way that is interesting for me at this point in time, which would be to tie it in to Microsoft since otherwise, at the moment, I would be quite busy for lesser philosophical debates).
Thanks.
And thankfully, I didn’t read it before the large posting, or I might not have posted. I did want to take some jabs at Microsoft and mono and friends. I think many underestimate the importance of dotnet and MS platforms to MS as well as to others (to avoid the platforms). And many are in a position where mono might be convenient for them, so they fail to see what all the racket is about. Possibly because of convenience, they may not imagine all the monkeying that might be involved here. Hear no evil, see no evil….OK. I’ll stop. Sorry.
“Rules of evidence” indeed.. I have some land here for ya. Don’t reject it until you actually suffer damage from this particular transaction. “Rules of Evidence!!” “Rules of Evidence.”
Deal with a monkey that has gone to great lengths over the years to expunge or keep hidden evidence of deceit, foul play, etc, etc?
Rules of Evidence. Blah. Yakkity yak. Don’t talk back.
Kurt Cobain said, “Just because you’re paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you.”
Look where he’s at now… dead. Courtney killed him.
Think about that. Let it sink in. Now, who paid you to write this?
[…] romantic, and believe in a world of possibility. I find myself to be happier this way than joining these ranks. And what better way of bringing Silverlight to Linux than to work together with Microsoft: they […]
The AARD code, the DOJ trial, “cutting of Netscape’s oxygen supply” the SUN Java/J++ trial, the Halloween documents, the Microsoft oficials’s Embrace, Extend, Extinguish testimony in the Iowa consumer case, the “going to **** google, burry Smith alive” (Steve Ballmer), the Larry Goldfarb decalration.. there’s a large are of solid evidence that Microsoft does not tolerate competetion well, to say the least.
Microsoft has shown through its actions and words not to tolerate competetion. Microsoft is a monoply. It is a monopolist’s interest to maintain its monoply position. Microsoft is now faced with its hardest competetive nut to crack in its entire history (“Just another OS/2” (Bill Gates)), one that cannot be bought, cannot be undercu i n price and that cannot be EEE’d (enter the Novell deal).
Labeling the suspisions against Microsoft as “Conspiracy theories” doesn’t cut it. Most conspiracy theories are not based on facts, au contraire, are based on anti-facts and wild, idle speculation. The suspisions against Microsoft, however, are solidly founded on the facts.
Explaining away Microsoft’s behavior by labeling suspisions against it as “conspiracy theories” is naive, hopelesly naive.
The label callers are back! This time, they’re not accusing us of “communism”, no this time it’s “paranoids”, “mental cases”, analog to Mel Gibson running around, looking for aliens that read our thoughts and control our minds. If you see them – they have their heads wrapped in tin foil – they are possibly raving around, talking that Microsoft is doing bad things, Michael de Icaza is getting is little too snug against Microsoft and Gnome is attacking KDE again by misinterpreting current events.
No, the only way to be REALLY sane is applaud the MS-Novell deal, run Gnome, be happy with OOXML (I got encyclopedias that are thinner) and pet Ballmer on his bold head.
It’s just another attempt to short-circuit any discussion again. Sure, there won’t be Halloween documents popping up all the time, so it won’t be possible to pinpoint the culprit right away. It’s gonna be circumstancial evidence at best. But according to your blog, that is “extreme paranoia”, “a refusal to consider alternate explanations” and “a disregard for the rules of evidence”.
If that were true, my dear Bruce, we would NEVER have had a Watergate scandal. Because those journalist were following their leads, their “coincidences” and finally came up with something.
In my case, I’d rather walk around with tin foil wrapped against my head than to accept the “good citizenship” you’re proposing.
Hans Bezemer
Sorry, but you seem to not understand what a conspiracy theory is. A conspiracy is a group of people executing a hidden agenda without anyone else knowing about it. A conspiracy theory is a theory that something is happening or has happened due to a conspiracy. A conspiracy theorist is simply a person trying to bring such a conspiracy to light.
I.e. a few days ago I heard someone arguing about how the world was run by Jewish bankers and how they controlled the worlds monetary system. A classical conspiracy theory.
But what you are talking about, which is Microsoft, Novell, Mono and GNOME, really has very little to do with conspiracies. Everything is done in the open; Novell has a business agreement with Microsoft, Mono is funded by Novell and GNOME has involved itself with OOXML. There is no hidden agenda in that.
One name keeps popping into my mind when i read this:
George W. Bush
Is that because I’m obsessed by him, or do I think he is part of a great conspiracy against humanity, being illuminati?
perhaps… 🙂
Or maybe it is because GW himself sees conspiracies when all that is is random related reaction to us aggression?
who knows.
Personally i find the conspiracy theorist in the FLOSS world far less dangerous, maybe even neglectable…
“A lack of civility and a quickness to give and take offense”
I find it amusing that at least this point (and sometimes others) can be applied to all of the people attacking Bruce right now in comments on this blog and elsewhere 😉
Wake up people, Bruce is not attacking you – he has simply made an observation which actually does hold true.
If you find the need to attack him, then perhaps you should reconsider your life – it’s obvious that you have let emotion (hate in particular) take control of it and that is not healthy.
You’ll find peace in acceptance of alternative ideas/approaches.
Aren’t you people part of the Free Software movement? Isn’t that movement about choice? It’s not about forcing free-software/ideology down other people’s throats – or if it is, it shouldn’t be because that would make you (the movement) no better than the proprietary software corporations you are fighting against.
For anyone that actually follows what Bruce writes, he writes about the successes of Linux/Free Software and seems to me to have a genuine interest in its success. So why attack him?
I guess I just don’t understand how people can be so full of hate that they feel the need to so vehemently attack people who are on their side. It just makes no sense.
It’s like “Pro-Life” people car bombing nurses and doctors who work at abortion clinics and murdering women who get abortions – can these people truly claim to be Pro-Life? I find it extremely disturbing that they can even justify these atrocities, let alone actually commit them. It’s just so hypocritical.
If you consider yourself to be a supporter of Free Software, how can you go and viciously attack developers of Free Software because of some slight difference in opinion? Don’t they have the right to do what they feel is right? Who appointed you dictator? Seriously, people, get a grip.
The immaturity level of certain Free Software advocates is just astonishing.
That is all.
No, it’s not that I don’t accept alternative opinions. It is that the discussion isn’t performed anymore. It’s not about facts, opinions and arguments, it’s about throwing labels and disqualifying groups of people.
Whether it is “communists”, “fanboys” or “conspiracy theorists”, I don’t care. Note what Bruce is doing here. He implying that all those who have something to say about Microsoft, Gnome, KDE or any other subject are fruitcases.
“You may remember leaning forward, straining to hear him – only to realize with a cold thrill that what he is saying is insane.” That is quite some statement!
Apart from that, it is a pretty bad article, where Bruce is burying himself in Wikipedia definitions, only to give his story some credibility. We all know there are good blogs and bad blogs. The bad blogs I ignore, the good ones I read. It’s like comments – there are good ones and bad ones – or programs.
And there are movements within the Open Source movement which are suspicious. Are all people writing about this fruitcases?
That’s what Bruce implies and that’s why I object to this article.
“Note what Bruce is doing here. He implying that all those who have something to say about Microsoft, Gnome, KDE or any other subject are fruitcases.”
I’m implying nothing of the sort. You’re inferring that.
It is perfectly possible to be against the actions of, say, Microsoft, without showing any of the other signs I talk about here.
> I’m implying nothing of the sort. You’re inferring that.
>
Just an example of your “quick to take offense” point ringing true 😉
> It is perfectly possible to be against the actions of, say,
> Microsoft, without showing any of the other signs I talk
> about here.
Exactly.
No one here, certainly not Bruce, is saying that Microsoft can do no evil. The people who try to portray Bruce’s article as saying that clearly are noticing that they themselves /are/ the very conspiracy theorists that Bruce’s article is talking about and thus are getting all defensive and in an attempt to justify their actions have begun trying to put words into his mouth in order to try and discredit him.
Hans:
You say Bruce is trying to put a ‘label’ the Free Software community? He is doing nothing of the sort. He has simply stated that there are conspiracy theorists in the Free Software community, he did not say that the Free Software community are conspiracy theorists.
Your claim that Bruce is saying so is akin to claiming that all fruits are apples because an apple is a fruit.
Your logic does not compute.
Just another attempt to put words into Bruce’s mouth in an attempt to discredit him, I guess.
I just realised that the first commenter mentioned that conspiracy theorists like to use circular logic, which is exactly what Hans is doing 😉
Makes me chuckle… hehe
“t is perfectly possible to be against the actions of, say, Microsoft, without showing any of the other signs I talk about here.”
Well, put your cards on the table. Where is the proof of your contentions. Who is showing the signs you are talking about? A few url’s please.
All I’ve seen out there regarding Microsoft vs. FLOSS/Open Standards to me bears no resemblence to the Conspiracy Theories (TC’s) I’ve seen out there: 9/11 Truth Schloars, Moon Hoax, Area 51, Roswell to name a few.
A few url’s and we can talk. We can evaluate whether the Microsoft critics are a bunch of Conspiracy Theorists, as you claim.
I’m going to make a prediction. You see a superficial resemblence between Microsoft critic’s behavior and Conspiracy Theorist’s behavior. And then you claim they are one and the same. It’s a popular rhetoric mode.
Because I see a key difference: TC’s are based on the absense of facts, on falsehoods, rumour, and Falacious logic, “the MS is out to kill FOSS and Open Standards” theory is based on hard evidence such as court testimony, revealed internal emails, leaked memo’s and the simple observation that it is in the interest of a Monopolist to maintain its monopoly status.
I see plenty other differences BTW, but I suspect there will be plenty of opportunity to put these forward when you will have presented the evidence of your contention/
Well, to conclude for now, put forward some references of the FOSS behavior you regard paranoid and we can talk.
“Just another attempt to put words into Bruce’s mouth in an attempt to discredit him, I guess.”
Hmm. don’t think so. I think it signals that Bruce hasn’t made sufficiently clear what he actually is claiming. Some refrences to tangible material he is talking about is, as I requested in an ealrier post, is more than welcome.
“I just realised that the first commenter mentioned that conspiracy theorists like to use circular logic, which is exactly what Hans is doing”
Firstly, where is it in Hans’ posts?
Secondly, a note. CT’s use circular logic (and a host of other logical falicies, named and unnamed). Using circular logic does not make one a CT. Logical Fallacies are commonly used. Thus cicural arguments are.
“Well, put your cards on the table. Where is the proof of your contentions. Who is showing the signs you are talking about? A few url’s please.”
I said at the start of the blog entry that I wasn’t going to specify who I was talking about. I won’t give them the attention, and I don’t have the time or inclination to start what seems likely to be an endless discussion.
And if that’s not good enough for you — well, you are reading a blog entry. It’s an expression of opinion.
However, if anyone else wants to suggest a candidate for discussion, please go ahead. But I’m not going to participate in the discussion much.
“Exactly.
No one here, certainly not Bruce, is saying that Microsoft can do no evil. The people who try to portray Bruce’s article as saying that clearly are noticing that they themselves /are/ the very conspiracy theorists that Bruce’s article is talking about and thus are getting all defensive and in an attempt to justify their actions have begun trying to put words into his mouth in order to try and discredit him.
”
You lost me here, Peaceful Warrior. On what basis do you conclude that these people are (I noted the slashes to emphasise) Conspiracy Theorists? Does misrepresenting or simple misunderstanding someone’s position or labeling someone make one a Conspiracy Theorists? You see, that’s all the verbal behavior I’m able to see here. So I’m curious what facts and logic leads to your conclusions. I’ve seen quite a bit of CT’s and crackpots at work, and it bears little resemblance to what I see on this page.
“remember that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”
I’ve seen that sort of thing claimed as “proof” that the wacko conspiracy was true. The primary place I have seen this is on Usenet, specifically “can.taxes”, the place that, were it not overwhelmed by crank “tax protestors,” might be a place to discuss my country’s tax policies.
The *classic* thing to see happen is for a ‘sane’ person to say “No, I’m not a part of the conspiracy,” and then see a “conspiracist” react with the response:
“… And as that is what someone in the conspiracy WOULD say, you therefore MUST be part of the conspiracy! QED!”
This is probably an example of the fallacy of the “excluded middle,” but with the difference that anyone that disagrees with the conspiracist winds up being deemed to be part of the conspiracy against them.
When I hear the term “conspiracy theorist” used, it’s often by some powerful individual or organization seeking to deflect investigation by discrediting the whistleblower.
A second use of the term is by third parties such as radio hosts who seem to have a need to demonstrate publically how pro-authority or mainstream they are.
Even if not used in those contexts, the term should not be used without a fair hearing of the actual argument being made, given its common use against the weak by the powerful.
Whistleblowers are important to the democratic functioning of society, and unlike the propagandists who carry the message of the powerful, have historically not been rewarded for their actions (On the contrary.)
You insinuate, without stating, that those who complain about MS fall into the category of “conspiracy theorists”.
You present a list of traits that we are to associate with “conspiracy theorists”, though many of these traits are common in the general population, including non “conspiracy theorists”.
Since the traits can’t be uniquely assigned to only those who spout “conspiracy theories”, one might conclude that your real issue is with people who argue irrationally, or point finger at others without proof.
If that is what you are trying to say, then by all means, prove them wrong on rational basis, without making naive blanket statements about conspiracies about which you are little-educated, and apparently have little motivation to debate.
P.S. As to whether such “conspiracy theorists” discourage uptake of free software, that would depend on the person,i.e.social activists would be encouraged, while technical people might ignore it in favor of such issues as security and stability
You’ve made some excellent points.
It seems the difference between a person who’s passionate versus a whacko is the depth of the arguments.
Actually, probably more useful than accusations against specific people would be the reverse: Examples of people who hold opinions that it might seem as if you’re talking about, but you’re actually not. So for instance it would be useful if you noted, say,
“I do not consider Andy Updegrove of consortiuminfo.org to be a conspiracy theorist; he talks about things Microsoft has done but stays calm and discusses evidence”
or
“I do not consider Andrew Tridgell a conspiracy theorist”
or
“I do not consider Richard Stallman a conspiracy theorist” (unless you do)
et cetera.
That might give us a baseline for what level of comment backing free software against attack you don’t consider to fall under your definition. Because specific though you may consider your definition to be, a debater can (and they frequently do) accuse *anyone* of “ignoring the rules of evidence” or “circular argument” or refusing to admit when they’re wrong or being obsessive about (whatever they’re interested in, e.g. Updegrove could be accused of being “obsessive” about standards). It shouldn’t be true, but where you stand on which arguments are sound often seems to depend on where you sit. In claiming that anyone with sense should be able to tell what kind of thing you are and are not referring to I think you are either naive or protest a little too much.
Remember that a passionate disposition to your own ideas does not make you a conspiracy theorist and I encourage people to share their ideas. I think it is better to have things in the light and have people share information and calling people conspiracy theorists discredits passionate people to the point that you might seem careless towards the other person. I wish to listen to people and their ideas and do not want to portray passionate people reasoning a position as conspiracy theorists because it will make me look careless, without depth, and without the fortitude to take a passionate opposing view with class.
Is this article not offensive? In Europe magazines are a little more outspoken. Virtually every month an editor takes a stand against MS, OOXML or others. Since it is their job, aren’t they spending “.. an inordinate amount of time researching and blogging about the object of their obsession”?
Would Bruce not agree that in order to write a good blog (or article) you’d rather have to spend a good deal of time researching it? Or does he rather copy press releases like so many editors and journalist nowadays?
In any case, you are a CT, because if you’re NOT researching your blog, you show “a disregard for the rules of evidence” and if you DO research you’re “obsessed”. That’s a catch-22 by any measure! Maybe it’s because you do not like “amateur journalists”?
“It is conceived as moving constantly in the shadows, recruiting dupes, spreading money when it has some and laying long range plans to subvert some or all of the community. Sometimes, these plans may make direct business sense, but, just as often, they are for dubious benefits.”
I can produce quite a sizable list of bad MS behaviour, but I must admit they make perfect business sense!
Key phrases: “There can be no truce with [insert object of obsession here]”
There have been tries to cooperate with MS, but every single time we’ve been backstabbed. May I remind you what happened in the EU? Did they comply? No, so MS got a fine. But according to Bruce, the whole EU parliament must be CTs.
“..ignore basic grammar such as the serial comma in order to find support for their beliefs”.
Lack of knowledge of basic English grammar make makes you an CT. Nuff said.
“Coincidence, circumstance, and human stupidity do not exist for the conspiracy theorist.”
Nixon for president! Bruce cherishes the myth of the investigative journalist. FYI: that always starts with NOT accepting “Coincidence, circumstance, and human stupidity” as a possible explanation!
“For instance, if a company has hired a former Microsoft executive, that is proof that the company is controlled by Microsoft.”
You’re probably referring to SCO. Another attack at Groklaw?
“Many of the sort of people I’m talking about know that “conspiracy theory” can be negative term, and are insulted if you apply it to them.”
Yes, I’m always happy be be called a fruitcake.
“It is perfectly possible to be against the actions of, say, Microsoft, without showing any of the other signs I talk about here.”
I find it pretty hard, I must admit. I certainly make some basic grammar errors (certainly in a foreign language), I do not think that MS will accept some reasonable business standards, I do spend considerable time researching my blogs and I DO feel offended when being called an CT – or any other label for that matter. So I suggest in a new article please explain me how I can escape being a CT. It’s not quite clear to me.
“I said at the start of the blog entry that I wasn’t going to specify who I was talking about. I won’t give them the attention, and I don’t have the time or inclination to start what seems likely to be an endless discussion.”
I would consider the use of unverifiable facts also a CT strategy.
Warrior: “I just realised that the first commenter mentioned that conspiracy theorists like to use circular logic, which is exactly what Hans is doing.”
Please explain: lack of evidence makes you a CT.
Hans Bezemer
[I submitted this one yesterday, for some reason it did not come through. I’ll try again.]
““Well, put your cards on the table. Where is the proof of your contentions. Who
is showing the signs you are talking about? A few url’s please.”
I said at the start of the blog entry that I wasn’t going to specify who I was t
alking about. I won’t give them the attention, and I don’t have the time or incl
ination to start what seems likely to be an endless discussion.”
You could put a quick end to the discusion by proving your point. A few urls to
the behavior you talk about suffice.
“And if that’s not good enough for you — well, you are reading a blog entry. It’
s an expression of opinion.
”
Let us see. You accuse SOME in the FOSS community being Conspiracy Theorists and
thus being an disgrace to the community. This not a light allegation, whether a
blog entry or not. A matter of opinion? I’m puzzled. Surely your opinion has it
s roots in tangible, real world behavior of people. Certainly some real world ex
pressions of people within the FOSS community gave rise to your opnion. It shoul
d not be to hard to find a few urls to the evidence that gave rise to your opnio
n.
I’m willing to provide a few links to evidence that give rise to my caution towa
rds Microsoft’s actions.
The Halloween Documents (mostly leaked memo’s): http://www.catb.org/~esr/hallowe
en/ (II is particularly readworthy)
Court despositions from the Iowa consumer case: http://antitrust.slated.org/www.
iowaconsumercase.org/
(The Alepin Embrace, Extend, Extinguish testimony is here: http://antitrust.slat
ed.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/VolumeXXV-January52007.txt,
Gates on the importance of MS propriatery fromats in http://antitrust.slated.org
/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf)
The Larry Goldfarb declaration: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006100
9152706664
Leaked e-mail urging MS partners to vote for OOXML: http://www.computerworld.com
/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9033701
I could dig up a few more, if you like.
I am a conspiracy theorist myself. All the items on your list are very valid, and I guess just one item is missing: conspiracy theorists often have fun (at your expense). I enjoy making and discussing conspiracy theories very much and do behave exactly as you describe. However, under different circumstances, like when it is necessary to actually make a decision, I behave differently.
Thus, whenever you write “refusal” it is absolutely correct, while when you mention “inability” it well may be “rude, selfish, and blatant refusal” instead.
Why am I like that? Or, better, what features of my personality make me likely to be one like that?
I like theories per se. I guess that a likely wrong theory is better than no theory at all, since it is such a convenient framework to place facts into. Thus, I am comfortable being obsessed with several theories at the same time, while it is clear that no 2 of them can coexist.
I am sure that the World and people in it exist mainly for my amusement. Thus, it is OK to misbehave from time to time.
I like things below horizon. I can understand people who get exited with news like “A celebrity is heading divorce”. I do not belong to the group, but “How to check for an alien installed beacon” works with me.
I like jokes. Some are based on decontextualized evidence and logical faults, right?
Finally, my question to Bruce is: how do you think, does software in general and free software in particular attract people like me? If yes, are we inevitable evil, like users to software developers?
Just got back from Brian Proffitt’s editorial on LinuxToday where he states:
“Byfield, who I think is an excellent writer, by the way, may be projecting a little bit of his own defensiveness in this entry. I know he’s been on the receiving end of some harsh criticisms in the past, and I know from personal experience it’s pretty disheartening”
I have not followed this blog, so if that what this is really all about, then I would agree with Patrick(39)’s suggestion to list a collection of the personal attacks. If they are unfair or irrational, it should be clear, and no one should support that ,especially on the part of anonymous posters.
Patrick,
I totally agree with you. I don’t know whether there is an editor, which monitors this blog before publication, but I certainly would advise him to do so.
“You accuse SOME in the FOSS community (..) being an disgrace to the community. This not a light allegation, whether a
blog entry or not. A matter of opinion? I’m puzzled.”
That is exactly the thing I’m so upset about. I’ve spent hours the last few days responding to this allegation of hard working, passionate people. I’ve finally found my words. You can read it at “The Beez’ speaks” (Google it).
I hope it’s finally out of my system. It’s not good for my blood pressure.
Hans Bezemer
“Would Bruce not agree that in order to write a good blog (or article) you’d rather have to spend a good deal of time researching it?”
I’m a professional writer. This blog is play with me — so no, in this case, a blog does not require the same level of research as an article. Besides, in this case, anyone who is likely to read should have no trouble suggesting possible conspiracy theorists.
As for naming those who are not conspiracy theorists, I would hope that people who are interested enough would take my criteria and field test if they are useful for separating valid criticisms from invalid ones.
However, if I were to make a list of people who do not qualify as conspiracy theorists (which I don’t have time to do), the first two names on the list would be Peter Brown, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation, and Eben Moglen, the main drafter of the last two versions of the GNU General Public License and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center. For me, both are the eptitome of principled, rational opposition to companies like Microsoft.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time personally or professionally to make any more responses here. But if I revisit this topic professionally at some point — which at least one editor has invited me to do — I will certainly take all the comments here into consideration.
So, thanks for the comments, and my apologies if I don’t respond further.
After Bruce’s post #43 my prediction still stands. Bruce sees a superficial resemblance between people who see a move being made that runs contrary to the interest of FOSS and wonder whether that move came from a competing force, a force that has been made similar moves in the past, and Consipiricy Theorists and declares them one and the same. The critcs are thereby cast in a corner an thus become harmless. Bruce can maintain his belief that all this stuff coming from Microsoft is just wonderful.
Read a little about real CT’s Bruce, I’d say.. and the difference will become apparent to you. Google for “Area 51”, “Moon Hoax”, “Oswald JFK”, “9/11 Truth” for a start.
Also doing a bit of reading on Microsoft anti competive practices, past and present, it stance against FOSS will be helpful. The courtroom testimony, the leaked e-mails and memo’s are revealing. Also enumerating Microsoft’s actions regarding ODF (and OOXML) since OASIS, the OSI comments on the OOXML spec, the fact that Microsoft has a 95% market share in the office space and trying to formulate an hypohesis that fits these facts and meets Ockam’s Razor on what Microsoft’s intentions are might be a good excercise.
Microsoft is a Monopoly. It is in the interest of a monopolist to maintain that position. FOSS is its worst competetive threat in ages. The anti competetive tricks it has succesfully used in the past are not effective against it. Having to base its products on Open Standards would make Microsoft vulnarable to free market forces: competitors could bring products to the markets that are fully compatible, better and/or cheaper than Microsoft’s offerings. What would happen to that 95% market share? Chances are it will not go up. Open Standards run contrary to the interests of Microsoft. So when Microsoft pushes forward its own file format as an alternative to an already accepted standard, a file format that only can be faithfully implemented by Microsoft iteself, when Microsoft, having 50 billion dollars in cash in the bank, programmers in India, China and Eastern Europe being a cheap commodoty, claims to not have the reasources to implement the already accepted standard than it becomes quite apparant what Microsoft is trying to achieve.
The reallity you try hard to not to see is as simple as 1 + 1, Bruce.
Conspiracy Theories are Fun
At least as long as you don’t take them seriously. But some people do, and they’re a waste of time .
You’re going to hate me for this, Bruce, but I just realized to my horror that you are exhibiting some of the behavior of “conspiracy theorists”
– Extreme paranoia directed at the object of the obsession (wrt “conspiracy theorists”)
-.An inability to summarize other viewpoints with any accuracy(can’t cite examples)
– A refusal to modify opinions, even in light of new evidence (Sorry no time)
etc.
Actually, I don’t really have time either, Anyway we now know this blog is just for play (so you can relax Hans), so can look forward to future stories on favorite snackfoods and video game reviews.
Patrick, you are now doing the same discrediting of the 9/11 truth movement that was done to you. Any objective viewing of the building collapse videos would not remind one of any building fires one has ever seen, but does resemble demolitions. Also destruction of evidence after this crime was allowed,which anyone watching CSI knows is unheard of.
Thanks to Bruce for being civil enough to let opposing voices be heard, in good humor.
For those who are demanding that Bruce name names, my guess is that Bruce hasn’t because he doesn’t want to get into a mud slinging contest involving those individuals.
What would naming names accomplish beyond that?
[…] These people are possibly the biggest thing I hate about open source. Right now I split my open source time between my own work, my FreeBSD work, and for my job I’ll be starting to get a little involved in Fedora hopefully. Having used open source software since 1999 I’ve been around a few different open source projects. One of the things I’ve enjoyed the most about FreeBSD is the relatively small tinfoil hat crowd. FreeBSD isn’t about fighting some bogeyman but about creating a damn good Unix-like OS and I hope we continue to keep it that way. […]
It seems insane that the slightest mention of MS as a target of warped or negative opinion from a free software defender can bring forth such negativity. The hate that bubbles up in these debates is frightening.
pcmo:
Thank you, I’m better now after counting to ten and writing three blogs (two published). I indeed would like to offer my appreciation to Bruce for letting us discuss the topic freely on this page. That means he’s open to other viewpoints and I’m looking forward to the follow-up.
Bruce admits having trouble writing opinion pieces so I’ll consider that – now emotion has subsided – as a professional accident. To me, it’s clear who he is addressing in particular.
As a fellow writer and professional columnist I can give him a few directions:
– A good opinion piece is centered around one single, clearly defined point;
– It is brief, between 650 and 1000 words preferably;
– It has a neutral introduction where the topic is introduced;
– Mount the tension carefully, don’t go over the top too soon, but don’t drop the tension as well;
– Present the facts with emotion, but don’t lie, misrepresent or misquote;
– Don’t draw conclusions too soon – there is a time for everything;
– Make sure the reader stays with your line of reasoning all the way;
– Then, make the conclusion, clearify and illustrate when needed;
– A good punchline – this is what will remain with the reader when he has finished;
– Choose your quotes, metaphors and proverbs carefully – the reader has to think “that hits the nail on the head”;
– Don’t babble – your reader gets either bored or you lose credibility; write as if each word costs you a grand.
Professional courtesy 😉
Hans Bezemer
What a work of art. The hostile responses shade from obviously sarcastic to obviously insane with indistinguishable subtlety, like a sky dusk in the west and twilight in the east.
You don’t have to be crazy to act that way. It’s very easy to fall into those habits of thought, and one feels a bit self-conscious reading the article. It’s hard to maintain a merely healthy level of skepticism, with there being so much to be skeptical about in our everyday lives.
[…] 7, 2008 by Bruce Byfield The fallout from my blog entry, “Conspiracy theorists and free software” continues. With all the people baying for my blood – some of whom, frankly, sound disingenuous […]
I started a website (pcusalist) to cover the problems in the Presbyterian world. The lack of information and denial from the powers that be (PTB), caused me to try to scrape together information into one spot. Some “leaders” have accused those opposed of “Conspiracy” and some opposed have accused the PTB of “Conspiracy”. I think they are both right. I mainly try to only be a “database” but I find it hard to resist the urge to comment. Your article spoke volumes to me.
Interesting article, but surely most of this applies to any obsessive people, not just ‘conspiracy theorists’.
I too read this and kept thinking “he’s describing George W. Bush”, with the possible exception of the bit about being abusive. (Although ‘W’ is certainly offensive and insulting to me).
I find it a little worrying that the noble activity of ‘whistle blowing’ tends to be lumped in under the derogatory category of ‘conspiracy theory’.
I wouldn’t want to suggest a conspiracy to make that happen (powerful people have nothing to hide, right?), but the fact is that important executive decisions *are* made in secret by unelected individuals, and many of those decision-makers remain unaccountable for their actions. That’s not a theory, that’s fact. The real ‘conspiracy’ is the conceit that conspiracy is rare. It’s not, it’s ‘business as usual’.
If I *know* that corporation X is about to sponsor a miltary coup of country Y, and I go around telling anyone who will listen, I will almost certainly be labeled a conspiracy theorist, rather than a ‘whistle-blower’, and that labeling is very much in the interest of the corporate plotters.
However, corporations certainly have sponsored military coups in the past. (Pepsi in Chilé, for example), and Microsoft very definitely has a history of dirty dealing, going back to the DR-DOS days, as illustrated in this quote from a Bill Gates email:
“What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable and when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and buy MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines in the office.”
– an early example of planned FUD. So it *does* happen. Then there’s the ‘knife-the-baby’ incident. There are smoking guns all over the place.
What the ‘conspiracy theorists’ have got wrong is the idea that there is one single, vast conspiracy controlling/distorting everything, which is quite ludicrous. The conspiracies ARE there, but most of the time they are only connected with each other by accident.
So please, may we have a little light and shade instead of this either/or policy. (“You’re either a conspiracy theorist or you’re sane” appears to summarize this article, with the further implication that “conspiracies never happen, and so should never need to be mentioned”, which I think is a rather sinister message to be peddling.)
Conspiracy theorists may be irritating, obsessive neurotics, but the conspiracies they tell us about are often real enough, at least in some important details.
Problem is, Bruce, that some conspiracy theories are right, and we’re all grateful when they’re exposed. Every complicated scenario is driven by complicated motivations.
To some extent, everything is a conspiracy because we can only really know what’s going on in our own heads (if that!). It’s separating the valid and dangerous ones from the invalid and/or not dangerous ones that’s tricky.
Complacency kills.
Dave
[…] has written a couple of other pieces that I liked on a similar subject: Conspiracy Theorists and Free Software and his follow-up Writing About Conspiracies follow-up […]
OMG!
Why didn’t I doscover this BEFORE I started arguing with the fanatic lunatic from Trolltech?!? I am not a free software guy. I work with disability rights, so the best tech for me is the one that secures these rights, free or not.
Anyway, this guy…OMG..he fits the discription SPOT ON, EVERY SINGLE POINT, not 5 or 6, ALL of them. He started to argue about, and accuse me for all the bad things MS do as if I was responsible for MS actions? Having my background, I do not defend MS or any other platform, and stated this 100 times, if not more. But to no help.
Thanks Bruce!
[…] 2008, 3:20 pm Filed under: awful warnings, blogging …share qualities outlined succintly on Conspiracy theorists and free software by Bruce Byfield on WordPress (2 January 2008). As you will see, he is interested in one particular […]
“Every complicated scenario is driven by complicated motivations.” – This belief should DEFINITELY be added as another sign of emerging CT patterns in one’s personality. It is utterly false, and that can even be demonstrated mathematically by a never ending number of proofs. Ask any physicist.
Many complicated and unjust things happen in this universe (and society) for very simple and arbitrary reasons or motivations (and even no reason at all). Not wanting to accept this basic fact of our existence is surely one of the main causes for such anti-social behavior.