3 ms·
Not exactly. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" can certainly be an ad hominem attack akin to calling someone a "wacko", but it can also be shorthand for "
by djur 8y ago
Not exactly. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" can certainly be an ad hominem attack akin to calling someone a "wacko", but it can also be shorthand for "your argument is structured like a conspiracy theory", and conspiracy theories tend to be logically unsound because they are unfalsifiable. (Broadly speaking, the conspiracy theorist can always explain away evidence contrary to their claims by suggesting that it, too, is part of the conspiracy.)
9/11 truthers, birthers, JFK assassination theorists, Illuminati/Satanist/New World Order types, pizzagaters, ZOG-believing antisemites, flat earthers, hollow earthers, etc. all have common rhetorical tactics and modes of argumentation that are distinctly "conspiracy theorist".
- JoshCole 8y agoGood point, though I'm really just trying to get across that 'since some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, all conspiracy theories are likely true' is not a good summation of the motivations which produced rplst8 statement. When I apply the principle of charity to what rplst8 said, I'm forced to ascribe to him beliefs which maximize the correctness of his views. In doing so, I have to take the position that he is referring to conspiracy theorist as applied as a label to a person, rather than used as shorthand to discuss the structure of someone's argument. This is especially a truth maximizing necessity, because the conversation he is replying to is discussing cases where conspiracy theories turned out to be true; not just unfalsifiable rhetoric.