Conservative or Conspiracy Theorist?

[butterbumps!]

 

Nope. Some words do have multiple meanings, and "conservative" isn't only a synonym for "votes right-wing". There are such phrases as "a conservative estimate" (which does not, actually, mean "some phony numbers cooked for the Koch brothers"). Seriously, you can look it up.

 

In this context, I accept the label "conservative" as appropriate. Even though politically I'm anything but.

 

I think mediterraneo is pointing out the way the wording of the title leads posters to identify as "conservative" because of the dichotomy set up.     The issue isn't with the word "conservative."   It's that there's an equivalency being suggested between "conservative" and "conspiracy theorist," where in reality it's kind of a false dichotomy.   One comes across as reasonable and sane, while the other sounds batshit and slightly deranged.  So of course more people will self-identify as "conservative" when then other choice makes you sound batshit and slightly deranged, lol.

 

sorry for intruding on this, I'm sure mediterraneo can speak for himself, but wanted to agree with the point he/ she was making about how the wording is probably skewing the way people are answering.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

 

I think mediterraneo is pointing out the way the wording of the title leads posters to identify as "conservative" because of the dichotomy set up.     The issue isn't with the word "conservative."   It's that there's an equivalency being suggested between "conservative" and "conspiracy theorist," where in reality it's kind of a false dichotomy.   One comes across as reasonable and sane, while the other sounds batshit and slightly deranged.  So of course more people will self-identify as "conservative" when then other choice makes you sound batshit and slightly deranged, lol.

 

Oh.

OK, my mistake, then. I was misled by the "his worldview" bit, when it merely means "his views on this exact topic".

 

And yes, the question does look a little like "Do you support [insert your favorite sports team's name here], or are you an asshole?", so not exactly neutral, but I don't think that should force fans of [enter some other team name here] into silence.

[Dofs]

I guess I am a conservative by your definition. I firmly believe that Aegon is fake and I don't even consider R+L=J and gravedigger theories as theories, they are 99.9% true. But I don't think there any other big theory that I am a fan of. 

[Dofs]

To be more clear, I meant literalism in this particular case. Some people stubbornly argue that what Summer saw was a dragon because it says "winged snake" in the text. But such a literalist reading completely ignores the logic and thematic/logistical coherence as Shadowcat Rivers said. According to the literalists, the dragon in Winterfell is the conservative reading.

Here I am, a conservative by the thread's definition, and I believe that those who think that Summer saw a dragon in Winterfell need to seriously reconsider their reading comprehension skills. 

[JonSnow4President]

I'm fairly conservative, although I have a slight conspiracy theorist streak in ASOIAF.  Unlike many other conspiracy theorists though, I don't talk about my pet crackpots that I can't reasonably back up.  

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

I think mediterraneo is pointing out the way the wording of the title leads posters to identify as "conservative" because of the dichotomy set up.     The issue isn't with the word "conservative."   It's that there's an equivalency being suggested between "conservative" and "conspiracy theorist," where in reality it's kind of a false dichotomy.   One comes across as reasonable and sane, while the other sounds batshit and slightly deranged.  So of course more people will self-identify as "conservative" when then other choice makes you sound batshit and slightly deranged, lol.
 
sorry for intruding on this, I'm sure mediterraneo can speak for himself, but wanted to agree with the point he/ she was making about how the wording is probably skewing the way people are answering.

It is a false dichotomy in the sense that there are many possible alternative positions that get minimized. But it squared with my observations about how the forum is divided in practice. The thread would not be decently popular if there wasn't a lot of truth to my two camp dichotomy.

[Lateral]

A theory that i pray to the 33 Gods, to the Seven and to the Old Gods, to be false is the R+L=J, because is incredibly cheesy.

hm. I am also not a fan of this theory*, but I guess "cheesy" depends on the consequences. if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna and that's it, I would actually like it. The "he is literally the song of ice and fire!!!! :D" and "he will sit the throne in the end because he has the strongest claim" stuff is what annoys me.

 

*although I am 100% sure that it is true

[BONEMAN]

Whatever Martin is playing at if someone revealed it on this board today it would be shouted down or ignored as tinfoil.

[Caspoi]

BONEMAN@ And how do you know?

[Rippounet]

Whatever Martin is playing at if someone revealed it on this board today it would be shouted down or ignored as tinfoil.

:agree:

 

Pretty much.

[kimim]

I'm wondering about the range of views on this forum. So, are you fairly conservative, believing in R+L=J and (f)Aegon but not a whole lot else, Or do you think GRRM is going to throw some serious curveballs that we need to try figuring out?

politically I'm as far from conservative as you can get, but when it comes to text, I'm conservative. I buy r+l as it's set up. I don't buy Daario as Euron or Quentyn's alive! or HS=HR or Tyrion is a secret Targ, etc. If you need to tear the text apart, combining a single image from book 4 with a single sentence from book 2, and start arguing over the exact placement of Jon and Dany's birthdays, and the mileage between KL and Dorne, then you're probably off. Aegon, fake or real, I don't care about. I don't think his entrance was well prepared, and I find him redundant, just more vying for the throne. The War of the Five Kings was great. Now please, bring on the walkers.

[Alaynsa Starne]

Personally, there are very few theories that I fully believe, even including my own pet crackpots. I didn't even think of Gravedigger Sandor, Robert Strong=Frankengregor, Sarella=Alleras, Ramsay castrated Theon, etc. as "theories" more than things that are clearly meant to be inferred as canonically true. 

 

That said, though, there are many mysteries in asoiaf and I think many theories are as plausible as the next simply because we have very little starting information on some incidents to go off of. For instance, the questions of what the heck was going on between Ashara and the Stark family, what happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna, whether Jon is a bastard, who the hooded man in Winterfell was, if the Pink Letter was written by someone other than Ramsay, Aegon's (if that is his real name) legitimacy or lackthereof, the identity of tpwwp/aa, etc. could go in several different ways. There's no one theory that I am unswayingly dedicated to, with, I suppose, the exception of RLJ.  

 

So I suppose I'm somewhere in the middle between conservative and "conspiracy" theorist. I'm not fully convinced by much, but I do like a lot of different ideas and do like discussing/playing around with theories to keep me from going insane while the wait for Winds grows longer and longer. 

[HoboJed]

I would say I'm neither conservative nor conspiracy theorist. I am totally down with getting involved with "out there" ideas, but I don't jump through mental hoops to hold on to obviously absurd ideas (for the most part).

 

For example, at surface level I liked HS = HR, but the text doesn't really support it, so I lump it in the "highly unlikely" category (hey, it's more credible than Euron = Dusky Woman).

 

I also like exploring around ideas that don't quite work, such as Lemongate. I accept that it is quite likely just a sign of Dorne's involvement in Dany's past, but I like to look at the various alternate explanations and see if I can make anything fit (the answer so far is "no", which shouldn't really surprise anyone).

 

I really, really believe that there is something going on with the imagery of The Seven in the books. Whether it is just GRRM having some fun with mirroring stuff, or if it is meant to mean something, I don't know, but there is definitely something there that is really cool... Seven watching is my ASoIaF guilty pleasure.

 

I also don't buy the common interpretations of Quaith's warning to Daenerys. I really don't think the way most people interpret it adds up, but I don't have any kind of complete competing theory (but I also suspect that we may not have enough information to fully understand it yet, so a complete theory may be misguided). I don't think that makes me a conspiracy theorist, though.

[Taenqyrhae]

I'm wondering about the range of views on this forum. So, are you fairly conservative, believing in R+L=J and (f)Aegon but not a whole lot else, Or do you think GRRM is going to throw some serious curveballs that we need to try figuring out?

There's nothing conservative about believing in a theory that has not been proven true yet.  Being in agreement with a small community who all believe one unproven thing doesn't make you conservative.  The conservative viewpoint is "Wait and see".

[BONEMAN]

BONEMAN@ And how do you know?

Short version : he's that good.

[VenezuelanLord]

There's nothing conservative about believing in a theory that has not been proven true yet.  Being in agreement with a small community who all believe one unproven thing doesn't make you conservative.  The conservative viewpoint is "Wait and see".

R+L=J is all but confirmed, GRRM left all the clues pointing out to it, if not please, do point out what did Ned found in the ToJ, why was lyanna in a bed of blood, what was Ned promise? Lyanna was abducted and spent close to a year perhaps even the whole year with rhaegar there... There's a host of threads lately aiming to shake the tree, but R+L=J is the one that fits the timeline and the posterior circumstances... You want to believe its more complicated and throw twins, baby swapping, multiple pregnancies, well, thats being a conspiracy theorists...

[butterbumps!]

It is a false dichotomy in the sense that there are many possible alternative positions that get minimized. But it squared with my observations about how the forum is divided in practice. The thread would not be decently popular if there wasn't a lot of truth to my two camp dichotomy.

 

wait what?   I thought the false dichotomy was either unintentional, or perhaps more amusingly, meant to be a kind of self-aware ribbing or something.    

 

But apparently you're going to commit to the position that posters who believe what you believe are "conservative" and those who believe in more are crazy "conspiracy theorists," and further, that posters only fall into the "reasonable like you" or "deranged batshit" in practice with no middle ground on here?

 

That's kind of "bold," and also pretty untrue, as even a lot of the responses in here point to a moderate approach to theorizing.   It kind of makes your discussion intentions questionable, and rather makes it seem more like complaining about those who don't think just like you.

 

I'm guessing you wouldn't appreciate an "are you closed-minded or progressive" thread, which is exactly what's going on in here, only reversed.   

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

wait what?   I thought the false dichotomy was either unintentional, or perhaps more amusingly, meant to be a kind of self-aware ribbing or something.    
 
But apparently you're going to commit to the position that posters who believe what you believe are "conservative" and those who believe in more are crazy "conspiracy theorists," and further, that posters only fall into the "reasonable like you" or "deranged batshit" in practice with no middle ground on here?
 
That's kind of "bold," and also pretty untrue, as even a lot of the responses in here point to a moderate approach to theorizing.   It kind of makes your discussion intentions questionable, and rather makes it seem more like complaining about those who don't think just like you.
 
I'm guessing you wouldn't appreciate an "are you closed-minded or progressive" thread, which is exactly what's going on in here, only reversed.

I guess I was pretty fair in my presentation because you got me wrong. I'm a Conspiracist all the way. I think Jaqen is Rhaegar.

[Clegane'sPup]

Lumping people into two catagories limits the discussion. Occasionally out of every discussion comes :idea: moments. I am referring to discussion not arguing or trying to prove a point.  Sometimes I just have a question I would like to get feedback on. If I am to label myself, I would say independent thinker. Because in the end after reading the thoughts of other people I decide which is revelent, plus there are the books to validate or dismiss opinions.

[butterbumps!]

I guess I was pretty fair in my presentation because you got me wrong. I'm a Conspiracist all the way. I think Jaqen is Rhaegar.

 

so you're actually going to dig in your heels on this.   ok, so if it were truly the case that you totally embrace "conspiracy theorist," you'd have explained you hadn't meant "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative term in response to me here, if not the actual OP, especially because you acknowledge that the term is not a neutral equivalent to "conservative."

 

the false dichotomy of the title wasn't a big deal at all until you came in to double down on your position that the board is full of "conservatives" and crazy "conspiracy theorists" without middle ground, and that the term "conspiracy theorist" is a fair one for the people of this forum.  It comes across as insulting and quite a bit judgmental.

 

You could have just acknowledged the false dichotomy (which you did, which tells us that you know perfectly well that "conspiracy theorist" is a more loaded term), and then either laugh it off (i.e. "I'm being cavalier about the term, but I don't mean it pejoratively") or correct the error if you were genuinely looking for a more objective questionnaire (i.e. simply changing the title to something like "do you read the text more cautiously or boldly" or something neutral like that, as mediterraneo was suggesting).  It wouldn't have been a big deal at all.

 

This thread is already toeing the line of getting a bit "meta" in terms of forum analysis.  The more you dig in on this issue, the more it comes across like you're judging posters, and the less appropriate the thread becomes.