OK, here's an idea. A debate's "relevance" is in direct relation to whether its outcome will have consequences for how individuals choose to direct their political energies. The test for relevance is whether one's more or less immediate decisions are in any way altered having come to a conculsion one way or another on the issue being debated.
Applying this test to the consipracy theory thread, let's assume two possible outcomes of the debate a) the most paranoid speculations are correct: a "secret team" controls institutions through the exerise of naked force preventing reformist factions from taking control over institutions. b) there is no "conspiracy" worthy of the name, only the normal exercise of elite prerogatives guaranteed by the structure of the institutions which they control. It is not obvious to me that any political decision I'm likely to make will be will be effected by my having reached analysis a or b. In either case, both sides implicitly aggree that the issue remains of how to challenge the domination of institutions by elite sectors, whoever they are. In short, the issue is "irrelevant" for how I choose to focus my political energies.
One could apply the test to other threads, and my impression is that the verdict of "irrelevance" would be returned in many cases-but by no means all. Take, for example, the fix it or nix it thread, and the general debate surrounding the ability of mainstream (or quasi-mainstream) organizations to articulate a radical consensus or push for radical change. Are mainstream organization hopelessly compromised by the sorts of accomodations which they are required to make to insure access to the establishment, or can these organization be a useful tool in extracting concession from capital? My views on this matter have immediate consequences for, for example, where I'm going to send money (e.g. Global Exchange or the Ruckus Society) whether I'm going ignore a kid vandalizing a Starbucks or give him the thumbs up or whether I'm going try to get "inside" the democratic convention in LA, as one list member suggested a while back, or "outside."
I don't want to blather on about this. But I do think these issues need to be raised if you are really "tired of being irrelevant."
>
> An actually existing movement would define "relevance" for political
> topics. In the absence of such a movement (and in respect to such a
> still really unexplored medium as maillists) you would have to be
> pretty arrogant to state with any confidence what was and was not
> relevant. Maillists seem to be a pretty individualist medium -- so
> relevance I suppose is determined by each subscriber's personal
> kill files or delete habits.
>
> Carrol
>
Oops. Sorry for the arrogance.
John