Shit like this really makes u realise that so much of what seperates 'dangerous' conspiracy theory from Science™ is the literary register in which the information is presented https://twitter.com/bigthink/status/1326690035450716163

Alex Jones rant about animal-human hybrids: conspiracy theory, deranged

Big Think science article: true, apparently, and, apparently, ok!

Alex Jones isn't happy abt the animal-human hybrids- he thinks they're an abomination! The 'reasonable' person rejects the idea because he already a priori disbelieves in anything capable of provoking one to Jones' level of rage or heavily moralistic style of rhetoric

The Big Think article presents the same information in an approximate neutrality of tone which unconsciously cues the reader in that the information is guaranteed by and exists within a continuum of scientific authority, and is therefore nothing to worry about

We're not supposed to listen to Jones but often we discover that what he says has a factual basis to which he has added the narrative layer of his own judgement- but our rejection of this layer is made from the presumption that there is no connection between it and reality at all

It then becomes a matter of comparing the different modes of presenting the same information- but here we find that the 'scientific' benefits of a 'neutral' description preclude the possibility of any moral examination of the subject whatsoever

A moment of epistemic alienation occurs when we ask ourselves 'what if we should feel the way Alex Jones does abt human-pig animal hybrids?' and find that the 'scientific answer' is a closed loop of self-justification, in which it is ok to do, because 'science' has done it

The resulting alienation from closed loop of justification then creates the moral context for Alex Jones' rhetoric, which is always implicitly saying 'no, you're not crazy- this stuff is wrong and they're getting away with it just because they can!'