"Conspiracy Theorist" - Where does this phrase come from

[Johnny Galt]

Years ago I inquired into this and what I found is aligned with the info in this video. I'm curious though, is this correct? or am I wrong? 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Johnny Galt

[AlterEgo]

Yep, and especially nowadays it's an overused blanket term used to forgo nuance and discredit anyone who doesn't parrot the mainstream narrative.  Like the anti-shill.

Just like on this forum.  "I'm skeptical about the vaccines.  How effective are they really? Lets talk about it."

"No! You're just a Maga conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer!  Vaccines safe and effective!"

[BlackPhil]

12 hours ago, AlterEgo said:

Yep, and especially nowadays it's an overused blanket term used to forgo nuance and discredit anyone who doesn't parrot the mainstream narrative.  Like the anti-shill.

Just like on this forum.  "I'm skeptical about the vaccines.  How effective are they really? Lets talk about it."

"No! You're just a Maga conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer!  Vaccines safe and effective!"

Very true. People are truly falling straight into this trap. Even people who in other issues seemed sane and conscious.

[Preety_India]

The real question is where are you going to draw a line and call it a conspiracy theory? 

 

[Johnny Galt]

@Preety_India I'm going to draw the line and refuse to use language intended to confuse people

[DocWatts]

The problem with Conspiracy Theories is that it's a very un-systemic and non-dialectical way of looking at the world.

It posits that problems in the world are the result of the actions of bad people working behind the scenes, rather than as systemic problems with systemic solutions.

A result of this is a very unsophisticated way of looking at the world, that proposes surface level solutions to problems instead of addressing root causes. Ie: focusing on exposing the nefarious activities of corrupt billionaires, rather than addressing how the underlying incentive structure of capitalism is at cross proposes with democratic ideals and the interests of the public, for example.

Furthermore, it's something that's easily weaponized to judge and demonize whoever the Conspiracy Theorist places in the role of 'The Other'. At the extreme end of this, weaponized conspiricism was a motivating psychological factor behind Nazism and The Holocaust. At the less extreme end, it's a form of gossip which is a distraction from actual solutions to problems that the world is facing.

Of course Leo already covered all of this in his Conspiracy video, but it's human nature to form egoic attachments to one's pet theories so the defensive backlash on threads like this really isn't much of a surprise.

Edited December 18, 2021 by DocWatts

[Consept]

Heres a breakdown of the CIA thing, which itself could be considered a conspiracy theory - https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117

But going deeper into your original question. I get what youre saying as any theory that is different to the accepted one is labelled a conspiracy theory. This may seem egregious to you if you believe in one of these fringe theories. The question is though, 'should some theories be dismissed?' and I would actually argue that yes some should, probably whatever theory you believe there will be some aspect of it or some other theory that seems like nonsense to you. For example a lot of people might believe in 9/11 inside job but then might also believe that flat earth is complete bullshit, im sure they would argue that time shouldnt be spent researching flat earth when it can be so easily disproven. So people that dont buy into conspiracy theories believe this about most conspiracy theories, its just a matter of degrees. 

There has to be some criteria for dismissing theories, most people use a scientific criteria or take expert opinion on the subject. In my opinion what takes something into 'conspiracy theory' territory is when its 'self-locking', so for example the expert opinion wont be taking and in fact the expert opinion now becomes part of the conspiracy, as in they must be on it. People will often retort with, well expert opinion can be wrong, look at history, and although this is true, one, its the nature of science to disprove itself, its actually a feature not a bug, two, if they are disproven by someone, that someone is usually an expert in the field not someone who does 'research' without any expertise, and three, a scientific consensus logically makes the most sense to follow, at least more sense than the minority. 

I understand people dont like to be dismissed for what they believe in, but the emotional reaction would to me signal evidence that one is too attached to their theory. If you were taking a strict search for truth, an attachment to any theory or idea would actually hold you back from finding the truth. A hypothesis is an educated guess that youre trying to prove wrong, not trying to prove right. So theres nothing wrong with having a theory that is where investigation starts, but buying into the theory and attaching your worldview to it is the antithesis of finding truth. 

[Johnny Galt]

@DocWatts @Consept

Thank you for the thought out responses. 

In general I do think we can get caught up with labels and categorizing in a way which reflects a reactionary and unconscious response. Like the conspiracy theorist who is quick to label something as a conspiracy, similarly, there will be those who label one a conspiracy theorist simply because there ideas are far out and contrary from what is usually believed by the collective, "authorities", and "experts".

At the root of this, as it appears to me, is the human condition, the unexamined nature of mind which reflexively categorizes in order to bring some sense of stability. I see this being played out with how people handle astrology, spiral dynamics, numerology, tarot, dream analyses and so forth. 

[Johnny Galt]

@Consept @DocWatts

The following information, this is a good example, of what some ("conspiracy theorists") may point to as a conspiracy (deceptive agenda). I'm curious, how would you both, or anyone else, proceed with processing the following information?

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00979277

"The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) requires access to cell-tower/operator location data that is secure, processed, and timely in addition to being adequately vetted for security, legal, privacy and transparency considerations to assist in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and for other public health applications. Aggregated indicators derived from cell-tower/operator location data provide insightful information and allow for meaningful analysis on the mobility (or movement) of populations in Canada. These analyses and findings provide situational awareness and help inform policy, public health messaging, evaluation of public health measures, and other aspects related to public health response, programming, planning and preparedness."

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Johnny Galt said:

@DocWatts @Consept

Thank you for the thought out responses. 

In general I do think we can get caught up with labels and categorizing in a way which reflects a reactionary and unconscious response. Like the conspiracy theorist who is quick to label something as a conspiracy, similarly, there will be those who label one a conspiracy theorist simply because there ideas are far out and contrary from what is usually believed by the collective, "authorities", and "experts".

At the root of this, as it appears to me, is the human condition, the unexamined nature of mind which reflexively categorizes in order to bring some sense of stability. I see this being played out with how people handle astrology, spiral dynamics, numerology, tarot, dream analyses and so forth. 

Im not disagreeing in some aspects, there of course can be a reflex of quick judgement and labels. In some senses this is how human beings almost have to operate as it would be difficult to delve into everything and fully understand it, this is why labels even exist in the first place to make life easier, of course there is the trade off that you will not be accurate in every judgement. I think simply having awareness of this quirk of having a human mind would solve a lot of issues, so for examples you recognise youve made a snap judgement and that you might be wrong. 

Having said that this snap judgement is based on whats happened previously, for example brands are built up on reputation in terms of good marketing or products, this ties an association of quality to a persons mind if theyve had good experiences with the brand, therefore they may just buy the product because the brand. This works the same with conspiracy theories, if someone looks into conspiracy theories and recognises that theres a certain faulty logic within them, they may not want to look deeper into more of them because of this brand or 'label', but theyre not necessarily wrong and even if they are is it worth the time to go through all claims just in case one might be right? 

From my personal experience i have some friends that are deep into the conspiracy rabbit hole and what i realised was that there was a massive weight of proof that they put on the scientific narrative as opposed to basically no weight of proof on their conspiracy. I would listen and ask questions but i realised this was more of a belief system than anything else, i spent a lot of time looking into what they said, most of the time i could see why they might think that but ultimately there was so much flawed logic. So then ive got to say do i spend time looking at all these conspiracies or do I look at them as theories that no expert agrees with and have spotty, arguable research, of course i will go with the latter. 

 

1 hour ago, Johnny Galt said:

@Consept @DocWatts

The following information, this is a good example, of what some ("conspiracy theorists") may point to as a conspiracy (deceptive agenda). I'm curious, how would you both, or anyone else, proceed with processing the following information?

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00979277

"The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) requires access to cell-tower/operator location data that is secure, processed, and timely in addition to being adequately vetted for security, legal, privacy and transparency considerations to assist in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and for other public health applications. Aggregated indicators derived from cell-tower/operator location data provide insightful information and allow for meaningful analysis on the mobility (or movement) of populations in Canada. These analyses and findings provide situational awareness and help inform policy, public health messaging, evaluation of public health measures, and other aspects related to public health response, programming, planning and preparedness."

This information is completely dependent on what your agenda is in the first place. Of course to someone into conspiracy theories, theyll say that Canada is monitoring all its citizens and theres some nefarious thing going on, but their mind is set and already looking for this pattern and things that it can tie to this pattern. There have been countless theories that ive seen pop on social media that turned out to be proven wrong and im not talking about fact checking (although i think thats valid), for example there were military vehicles being transported in London at the start of the pandemic, people started claiming that the military was being brought into lockdown london, of course this never happened. The only information they had was video of the vehicles being transported on the motorway. Because their mind was primed, they saw something which is routine and turned into something completely different.

Regarding the Canada stuff, logically it wouldnt make sense that if it is a conspiracy that they say exactly what theyre doing on a government website open to the public. Theres a fear of being watched and monitored which is a consistent worry of conspiracy people, but whats funny is the contradictions, most have phones, most dont live off grid, most have social media, so theyre literally opting into being monitored but then complaining on monitored platforms about being monitored, even after its come out that facebook was violating privacy, you cant make it up. But when the given reason behind monitoring is public health then they want to question that.