Smoke as Argument: Conspiracy Theory Edition
As smoke hits the Midwest it merges with another argument
A bit ago I wrote a piece talking about how the smoke in New York and other places in the Northeast was used as evidence in dueling arguments, resulting in the bizarre claim on a Fox News program that breathing in smoke was pretty healthy actually, and that the whole smoke “panic” was really just a way for health authorities to lock you in your house again.
So the smoke has to be harmless, really, because it’s evidence of an argument about the supposed power-hungriness of health authorities and the supposed alarmism of climate scientists.
A week or so later, the smoke moved into the Midwest, and that’s where we see the interesting dynamics that are best explained by the open arguments model I’ve been detailing. Here’s what some of the posts looked like when it hit the midwest:
People would generally talk about this being pulled into a narrative here. And we can certainly talk about it that way. What has happened here is that as the smoke began affecting the Midwest it collided into another ongoing argument, pretty infused with conspiracism.
Remember that train that exploded in Palestine, OH? At that time there was a narrative that emerged that all the recent train and tractor-trailer accidents were really plots to intentionally poison the heartland. This follows some older stories. But from our point of view we can see the train explosion in Palestine as being fitted as evidence that the government is intentionally trying to poison people, particularly “true americans”. This is an old claim that we see in discourse about everything from fluoridation, to vaccines, to chemtrails. So in this case, rather than seeing it smoke harmless, and as evidence an authoritarian health agency the people here see it as fake, a man-made disaster used as cover to poison or psychologically alter the population. This can be “evidence” for a cluster of conspiracy theory claims, from the population culling narrative of Agenda 21 to the psychological control theories of the chemtrail crowd. But you’ll notice that that level of detail isn’t particularly valued here. Those are granular theories of the why, and the core here is the what.
But again, notice what is happening here. We can say that the things people are saying about the smoke are claims, but that’s only partly true. The big question is not whether the claims about the smoke are true — it’s actually the inverse. The question is “What is the smoke evidence of, and why?” Particularly after the reported smoke was associated with the Midwest, rather than say New York City, it became easier to claim this as evidence of another “Palestine, OH-like attack” — an attempt by urban elites to poison the patriots of the heartland (an argument with unfortunate ties to white nationalist discourse around a supposed “white genocide”). And once that connection is made, the effort to build the evidence up as strong evidence starts. “If it’s smoke, why does it smell like plastic? Where’s the ash?” etc.
To sum up — smoke happens, and three open arguments exist to pop the smoke as evidence in:
Smoke is evidence of the problems of climate change, contains harmful elements like benzene, and you should stay inside.
Smoke is healthy, but reaction to it is evidence of authoritarian health police state. Calls to stay inside are attempts at creating fake panic.
Smoke is evidence of government plot to either poison, sterilize, or control population (particularly targeted at right-thinking people in the heartland), contains harmful elements like benzene, and you should stay inside.
People choose these partially based on fit — an event in the midwest fits argument three better than an event in NYC — and partially based on which arguments they care about the most. In this case, rather than the evidence being central to an argument that everyone is in together the real issue is which of many arguments this piece of evidence best supports and where it is best used.