5 ms·

Does the author discern anywhere in the article on plausible theories/historical examples vs. the outlandish theories? If so I must have skimmed over it. If not

• Jtsummers 9y ago
  Conspiracy theories and conspiracies are separate things when people are discussing them like this. Someone claiming the moon landing is a hoax, conspiracy theory. Someone saying that Jack, Jim, and Bob conspired to rob a bank (perhaps without real evidence), is also technically a conspiracy theory, but it's more easily verified or dismissed. And depending on the people, may or may not be as outlandish as claiming that Kubrick filmed the Lunar Landing on a sound stage.
• krapp 9y ago
  Do they need to? Why assume that, unless the author explicitly mentions the existence of plausible theories and add a caveat that not all conspiracy theories are absurd, they must be arguing for the condemnation of anyone who believes in a conspiracy? Why not discern the authors' intent from their actual words? Actual, verifiable conspiracies do exist, meanwhile everything the article claims about the nature of conspiracy theory is also true.
  • wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Yes, we should be specific in our definitions, otherwise the default would be the dictionary definition, which would have included the previously "absurd" theory (before Snowden) that the US government is performing dragnet surveillance on it's own citizens.