What Is a Conspiracy Theory?

Yet my thread about RFK Jr. was sent to the "conspiracy theory" subforum, all because one poster called it a conspiracy theory. So you, redeemer, and I all say it is not a conspiracy theory, yet "Andrew Jackson" and Meta say it is. What are we to make of this?

 

I think it's pretty clear a story on an actual current even cannot, by definition, be a "conspiracy theory". Anyone who actually thinks it is, well they are the conspiracy... I don't even know what to say about it beyond that.

 

I think it demonstrates two important points.

1. The term itself is meaningless. It varies wildly depending on who is using it.
2. The term has a power all of its own.

I think we should question how a term that has no real meaning can be so pervasive and influential.

 

A conspiracy theory is that your Samsung TV is listening to you. Or that the FBI reads your letters at GMail. Or that the fluoride in the toothpaste is harmful to your health.

 

Those are examples, not definitions.

 

You have a point, although I would ask, what phrase should we use instead for hypothesis like "The Fake Moon Landing", or "911 Was An Inside Job", or to be more generic, ideas describing something done by a group in secret, which are virtually disproved (scientifically), and are extraordinary claims? Because that is originally where the phrase came from. As you say it is now also used as a tactic to shame people into submission (deriving from the meaning), but it still does technically have a definitive usage. The phrase is so pervasive and influential because of it's history and generic meaning, and of course the powerful learned they can exploit this.

 

I know. It's like those leftists - if you want to silence your opponent just call him a racist, a bigot or something of that nature. The same with conspiracy theories - if you want to hide you bad deeds, just call the allegations "conspiracy theory".

 

What's wrong with just calling it a hypothesis? That word is well-defined and objective and accurately describes what is being communicated.

 

You read my mind, though technically a conspiracy theory is just a specific "kind" of hypothesis, which is why it can be a little ambiguous.

 

Generally it's a news story that has no or very little evidence and where the paucity of evidence is thought to be due to a conspiracy to cover the story up. A defining characteristic therefore becomes the fact that the less evidence you have the more it will be believed by its adherents. The best example of this is Flat Earth, where the literal impossibility of the story becomes proof positive of a plot to deceive us all as to the nature of the world we live in itself

Conspiracy theory stories are very extensive. Two I am familiar with that deal with conspiracy theories themselves are Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco and VALIS by Philip K. Dick (though everything by Dick is like that as he saw life and even reality as a conspiracy)

 

People keep trying to define this meaningless term. It has no real definition. It's just a made-up word that is used to shut down debate.

 

A conspiracy theory is way of explaination of some event that relies on elaborate coordinated participation of several people. This has come to imply a theory that contravenes the commonly accepted explanation of events. Usually a conspiracy theory violates ocams razor that asserts that the most straight forward k explanation is the most likely to be true

 

In other words, a "conspiracy theory" is a made-up term with no objective criteria that is used to attack or censor ideas that certain people don't want to hear or engage with.

 

The evidence decides whether or not a theory is rational.

To answer your original question, you're right, technically anything can be considered a conspiracy theory, from foriegn government overthrow to flat earth theory. However what separates what is plausible and what is fringe is the evidence that supports it.

 

"The evidence" cannot decide anything. Only people can make decisions. And people often misinterpret the evidence.

Except even when there is evidence in support of something, it still gets labeled a "conspiracy theory" because as you've just admitted, technically anything can be classified as such.

Just the other day, I posted a news story from The Washington Post about RFK Jr. saying Sirhan Sirhan is innocent, and that thread, despite being widely reported by numerous mainstream outlets, was sent to the "conspiracy theory" subforum. So even a story that is completely factual was treated as a "conspiracy theory" simply because it could be interpreted as a challenge to the "official" narrative. And that is what the "conspiracy theory" term is really about: Silencing and discrediting people who challenge official narratives. It is a propaganda weapon and nothing more.

 

Yes,
otoh all of language is comprised of “made up terms”

Yes... just as evil is a made up term with no objective criteria

Now YOU are inventing things

Virtually every imaginable conspiracy theory has been presented on this forum
These theories have no t been censored
And people have engaged on most of these theories
And, most often this engagement has basically pointed out the reasons why the theory is ill founded
.... perhaps you consider it to be censorship when someone points out the flaws of flat earth theory

Sort of by definition, a conspiracy theory will be a fringe idea that most experts dismiss.
So if you present a conspiracy theory the likely response will be dismissive
That dismissiveness is not censorship
Heck... Einstein’s theories were dismissed when they were first presented

Are you feeling specially victimized by the response to conspiracy theories that you have presented?

 

True, but some words are meaningful and some words are not. Conspiracy theory is of the latter sort.

Okay, so building on that comparison, how would you feel if there was an "evil" subforum where all the "evil" threads were sent to? It would seem pretty bizarre, no?

Sending ideas to an obscure subforum that barely anyone reads or posts in is a form of censorship.

And you have it all backwards. I want my so-called "conspiracy theories" (which you still haven't defined using any objective criteria) to be discussed vigorously. But that cannot happen if they are only allowed in some obscure subforum that falls under a loaded heading.

It's basically the difference between being allowed to protest in Times Square or being relegated to some abandoned property on the outskirts of the city. Technically, you get to have your protest, but no one is around to hear it. To claim that is not a form of censorship beggars belief.

 

Well in terms of the "fake moon landings" no rational person would believe it because the Soviets would know and it is simply not believable that the Soviets would've "kept quiet" about it.

Likewise the "9-11 Truther (inside job)" conspiracy theory fails because (like JFK Assassination theories) it requires a staggering level of both competence and perfect secrecy among the perpetrators of it.

Personally I consider the idea (though its widely accepted) that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately lied about WMDs in Iraq because to me it doesn't stand up to logical muster.

You have to believe that:

1) The Bush admin. lied about WMDs in Iraq.
2) To justify support for an invasion of Iraq.
3) An invasion that inevitably exposed those lies to all the world.

Thus to me it makes no logical sense and is simply not believable.

 

Again, those are examples, not definitions.

If you cannot even define what a "conspiracy theory" is using objective and consistent criteria, then there is no way to provide valid examples of a conspiracy theory.

The fact is: "Conspiracy theory" means whatever the person using that term wants it to mean at that particular moment. It is purely subjective, which is why nobody can even agree on what it really means or what actually qualifies as a "conspiracy theory".

In a way, the term is almost like a magical incantation that has taken on a power of its own through sheer force of repetition.

Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory.

That combination of words is ultimately hollow and meaningless. The kind of person who relies on such terminology to communicate isn't actually thinking about what they're saying.

 

Not all conspiracy theories are equal.

Flat earth

Fake moon landings

Sandy Hook was a false flag

The Jews are responsible for 9/11

Are some glaring examples of crazy conspiracy theories


CIA involvement in assassination plots of Castro and elsewhere is not one of those

 

Crazy conspiracies use random, misinterpreted, and often completely bogus "facts" to make them appear "real" to people who don't research them adequately

 

"Conspiracy theory" hasn't even been defined yet. At least, not in any objective way. As far as I can tell, "conspiracy theory" just means "ideas I don't agree with for whatever reason".

 

And, of course, you'll be the one who decides what is "random" or "misinterpreted" or "completely bogus"...

 

So what specific criteria? Anything other than the official story given to us by MSM and our gov't. For some reason the CIA thought it necessary to coin this term long ago for some reason. And it is used prolifically today as some question the official stories.

If you simply take the words at face value, with no bias added, it would mean that there are other things involved than the official story voices. Generally these other things are intimated by the number of coincidences and incoherence within the official story. Above reasonable odds. Almost like winning the lotto several days in a row. Some of us respond to this with conjecture and others pay no attention to the coincidences and incoherence and if you do, you are a conspiracy theorist. But this is a negative, an insult, an intimation that you are basically stupid. Concerned with too many coincidences and incoherence. Only stupid people concern themselves with such things. And most detectives of every kind.

 

Why would you expect a hard and fast definition? Most of life isn't like that.