Why are conspiracy theories popular in Pakistan??

[arihant]

Referring to your post.

But yeah, it's obvious that Indians are in no position to lecture others on conspiracy theories. I mean for a nation where several conspiracy theories are popular, it's utterly hypocritical.

I think its getting bit over. What something I can say here is that both country people believe in conspiracy theory but at least both countries public must not believe in same when you have access to net. To my personal view because of ZH, lot of theories are published in Pakistan rather any one else. To India it could have been but as Verma doesn't have access to media in such way, its theories are irrelevant.

To me the most theories put forward by are of USA but they are one who usually discard the same.

 

[SMC]

It all depends on how you decide what is a 'conspiracy theory' and what isn't. Because, frankly speaking, there is no way we can establish the veracity of anything that happens anywhere in the world, unless it is on the same street as where we live/work.

So, we rely on the media. Various media houses have varying degrees of reputation. In India, the Hindu, Indian Express, etc. have a reputation of being unbiased and coming up with well-researched articles. While Aaj Tak and India TV do not have the same reputation.

Now, when media houses with worldwide reputation come up with a story, they are generally believed. They have a reputation of doing their research and homework thoroughly well.

You might argue that some sections of 'reliable media' are biased against Pakistan, but then, the only effect of that would be a hostile tone in the reporting, they never twist facts or give an intentionally wrong impression.

So, when I see all these media houses of repute saying basically the same thing, I tend to believe it. On the other hand, not believing it and justifying it is a conspiracy theory!

That's not what a conspiracy theory is mate. A conspiracy theory is a theory suggesting a conspiracy but has very little to no evidence suggesting that the theory is true. It's quite specific, not ambiguous and not something that differs (or at least should not) from people to people.

Now you're wrong in that just because media (and what you call 'reputable media') repeats something over and over, it means it must be true. That's a logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter how reputable it is, how much they repeat it. What they need is solid evidence.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

That's not what a conspiracy theory is mate. A conspiracy theory is a theory suggesting a conspiracy but has very little to no evidence suggesting that the theory is true. It's quite specific, not ambiguous and not something that differs (or at least should not) from people to people.

Now you're wrong in that just because media (and what you call 'reputable media') repeats something over and over, it means it must be true. That's a logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter how reputable it is, how much they repeat it. What they need is solid evidence.

And how do I, a poor lil' software architect working 13 hours a day, find out whether a theory has solid evidence or not? If 15 international media outlets say that the ISI is supporting the Taliban, out of which 10 are highly reputable, I will believe it, won't I? I cannot travel to Pakistan and investigate the truth!

 

[Areesh]

When there was a news about PLA's presence in GB, the whole Bharati media and members here on defence.pk went haywire over that news. Wasn't it a conspiracy theory. Why only Pakistanis are accused of believing in conspiracy theories by Bharatis when they have many of their own, with latest one with PLA presence in GB.

 

[arihant]

When there was a news about PLA's presence in GB, the whole Bharati media and members here on defence.pk went haywire over that news. Wasn't it a conspiracy theory. Why only Pakistanis are accused of believing in conspiracy theories by Bharatis when they have many of their own, with latest one with PLA presence in GB.

It was news with Masala because China itself agreed that their army was present in GB but only for assistance or completion of project. If you consider that conspiracy than there are around 50 topics posted daily by TOI all with editorial masala.

 

[SMC]

And how do I, a poor lil' software architect working 13 hours a day, find out whether a theory has solid evidence or not? If 15 international media outlets say that the ISI is supporting the Taliban, out of which 10 are highly reputable, I will believe it, won't I? I cannot travel to Pakistan and investigate the truth!

If you believe it like that, it just means you're believing a conspiracy theory. Even if it's reputable media and a lot of it at that. They show no evidence, they are showing a conspiracy theory. Obviously you won't feel it because they are big name channels, but it's a conspiracy theory by definition.

 

[Areesh]

It was news with Masala because China itself agreed that their army was present in GB but only for assistance or completion of project. If you consider that conspiracy than there are around 50 topics posted daily by TOI all with editorial masala.

But as you said China itself cleared that no combat troops so no masala. It is spice less. Wonder why those who believe in that fake news and other such news by TOI and other Bharatis media aren't accused of believing in conspiracy theories.

 

[arihant]

But as you said China itself cleared that no combat troops so no masala. It is spice less. Wonder why those who believe in that fake news and other such news by TOI and other Bharatis media aren't accused of believing in conspiracy theories.

I guess china cleared after India Foreign Ministry asked the Chinese Ambassador. So the story was pre made while the clearance was after wards. Moreover, GB is non accessible to Media and therefore if any theory even if created can neither be called true or fake unless replied by Pak or Chinese itself.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

If you believe it like that, it just means you're believing a conspiracy theory. Even if it's reputable media and a lot of it at that. They show no evidence, they are showing a conspiracy theory. Obviously you won't feel it because they are big name channels, but it's a conspiracy theory by definition.

So what you're saying is, question whatever any media tells you, till they show you the evidence.

Well, I feel that on the other hand, it would be a conspiracy theory if I did such a thing, and kept asking questions like: "Oh well, the BBC crew say that they went up to the tribal areas of Pakistan and interviewed an informant who provided them this information. They say that, but hey, who knows, it might be totally false, maybe they are doing it deliberately to discredit Pakistan. Wonder who has asked them to do it! Oh wait, maybe it's...."

I rest my case.

 

[temujin]

What you have to show us is that you don't also believe in conspiracy theories. It's irrelevant whether others also believe in conspiracy theories. It just means that the conspiracy theory is more popular, that's it. Doesn't make it any less a conspiracy theory.

SMC, let's run with this for a bit..So you are basically arguing that one's "truth" is another's conspiracy theory. But do you accept that with any contested matter, where there are conflicting point of views, there would be one version that would be the "truth", i.e. that which accurately describes what transpired in reality? So what would it take for those holding the contrarian view to move closer to accepting what the more widely held version of events (which I am assuming in most instances would have some evidence to back it)?

I can see how it would much easier to believe in one's own version of truth, if the alternative involved painful introspection.This sort of black and white thinking and the limited ability to empathise with the other's perspective, constantly reinforced by stereotypes (The Pakistani view of the "Hindu" as dark, devious, back stabbing, genetically inferior etc akin to the Nazi potrayal of the Jew as darker, greedy genetically inferior and devious compared to the Aryans) can leave the individual with a sense of superiority and entitlement which can be extremely potent and ego protective.As long as this cognitive style endures and is perpetrated by conformism and group think, there is little incentive for self reflection or seeking reconciliation with the 'other'..

BTW, do you believe in the moon landings or the fact that humans built the pyramids? Do you consider 9/11 to be an "inside job" despite the number of jews who died in the attack?

 

[SMC]

So what you're saying is, question whatever any media tells you, till they show you the evidence.

Well, I feel that on the other hand, it would be a conspiracy theory if I did such a thing, and kept asking questions like: "Oh well, the BBC crew say that they went up to the tribal areas of Pakistan and interviewed an informant who provided them this information. They say that, but hey, who knows, it might be totally false, maybe they are doing it deliberately to discredit Pakistan. Wonder who has asked them to do it! Oh wait, maybe it's...."

I rest my case.

When you accuse someone of doing something wrong, you need evidence to support your case. End of the story. You can spin it all you want, it's a conspiracy theory.

The "reputable western media" has time and time shown its bias on Pakistan by selectively reporting stories. Furthermore, accusing a state of doing something wrong is a serious accusation that needs to be proven. It's not like any other claim out there.

Also, their reputation is irrelevant in this case because in cases like these, the media can't investigate this independently without the help of the state. It's almost like the LSE case, where a professor from a university accused ISI of supporting terrorism. Well it doesn't matter how big a name you are or how big is the name of the place where you come from are. In matters like these, you're no authority since there can't be any authority on these matters. All accusations must be proven.

To you, it's obviously a conspiracy theory if India is accused but not if Pakistan is accuse, despite there being no evidence to support either.

 

[SMC]

SMC, let's run with this for a bit..So you are basically arguing that one's "truth" is another's conspiracy theory. But do you accept that with any contested matter, where there are conflicting point of views, there would be one version that would be the "truth", i.e. that which accurately describes what transpired in reality? So what would it take for those holding the contrarian view to move closer to accepting what the more widely held version of events (which I am assuming in most instances would have some evidence to back it)?

I can see how it would much easier to believe in one's own version of truth, if the alternative involved painful introspection.This sort of black and white thinking and the limited ability to empathise with the other's perspective, constantly reinforced by stereotypes (The Pakistani view of the "Hindu" as dark, devious, back stabbing, genetically inferior etc akin to the Nazi potrayal of the Jew as darker, greedy genetically inferior and devious compared to the Aryans) can leave the individual with a sense of superiority and entitlement which can be extremely potent and ego protective.As long as this cognitive style endures and is perpetrated by conformism and group think, there is little incentive for self reflection or seeking reconciliation with the 'other'..

BTW, do you believe in the moon landings or the fact that humans built the pyramids? Do you consider 9/11 to be an "inside job" despite the number of jews who died in the attack?

I have already described what conspiracy theories are based on the dictionary definition, not my own definition, in post #62. It's very clear as to what a conspiracy theory is.

As far as my beliefs are concerned, yes I believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I acknowledge that what I believe is a conspiracy theory.

 

[temujin]

When there was a news about PLA's presence in GB, the whole Bharati media and members here on defence.pk went haywire over that news. Wasn't it a conspiracy theory. Why only Pakistanis are accused of believing in conspiracy theories by Bharatis when they have many of their own, with latest one with PLA presence in GB.

All governments engage in propoganda and this was just an example on it. I don`t think this piece of news gained much traction with the Indian public...

 

[SMC]

Conspiracy theory is quite an unambiguous term and it doesn't depend on what one thinks is the truth or not. If you accuse someone of being involved in a conspiracy, but have little or no evidence to suggest your story, then you're making a conspiracy theory claim.

 

[temujin]

I have already described what conspiracy theories are based on the dictionary definition, not my own definition, in post #62. It's very clear as to what a conspiracy theory is.

As far as my beliefs are concerned, yes I believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I acknowledge that what I believe is a conspiracy theory.

SMC, its heartening to hear that you accept the 9/11 conspiracy theory for what it is.

You have given the defnition for a conspiracy theory but haven`t quite explained how you discriminate between a CT and the "truth"? What is, in your eyes, "credible evidence" that would change your mind on 9/11?? (going back in time doesn`t count)