3 ms·

You're repeating what you've said already. Seemingly without even noticing what I've said. Where are you heading? I try one more time: Your definition of cons

You're repeating what you've said already. Seemingly without even noticing what I've said. Where are you heading? I try one more time: Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". You're repeating the made up framing. Please look up the definition in Wikipedia. Any language version besides the English one supports what I've written a few comments above, and disagrees with what you're saying.

the_af 5y ago
> Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". Ah, a prescriptivist, I see. Regardless of what you think is the "correct" meaning of conspiracy theory, it's in widespread use with a different meaning, what you call a "cliche". Whether you accept this or not doesn't make this usage less real; it just might make your conversations with other people harder. PS: I speak Spanish and regardless of what Wikipedia says, the common usage of "teoría conspirativa" is the same as what you describe as a cliché.
- still_grokking 5y ago
  How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? (I've checked eight language versions besides the English one. Please note also the historic background of this term which is in sync with the common definition). What you describe as "common" is a framing. Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. > That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché. I understand that's the gist of your argument. I'm just saying it's also a convenient defense deployed by people who engage in conspiracy theories, a sister defense of the old "you're narrow minded!". If something is a conspiracy theory, it's not a TTC to call it one.
    - still_grokking 5y ago
      > It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. That's a fair point. Actually that's a good question! I've suggested an explanation already. >> Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. It's also notable that the German version of the Wikipedia proposes two distinct terms to resolve the ambiguity in the usage of the more and more blurred term "conspiracy theory": "conspiracy hypotheses" and "conspiracy myths". But I wouldn't call those terms common in any sense… (Indeed, as a native speaker I've never heard of those).
      - elcapitan 5y ago
        "Conspiracy myth" has been introduced in German media mostly to denounce conspiracy theories as "not even theories". It's itself loaded language, ironically.
        still_grokking 5y ago
        But at least you wouldn't have to argue about the meaning of that term. You can just outright refuse it and say that the thing that is talked about is in fact a conspiracy hypothesis. It would make discussion more easy. The term "conspiracy theory" may in fact be ambiguous to some folks. The other terms aren't. Only that almost nobody uses them (or I just don't know, as I'm avoiding most of the main stream media because of the constant bombardment with propaganda BS).

the_af 5y ago

> Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". Ah, a prescriptivist, I see. Regardless of what you think is the "correct" meaning of conspiracy theory, it's in widespread use with a different meaning, what you call a "cliche". Whether you accept this or not doesn't make this usage less real; it just might make your conversations with other people harder. PS: I speak Spanish and regardless of what Wikipedia says, the common usage of "teoría conspirativa" is the same as what you describe as a cliché.

still_grokking 5y ago
How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? (I've checked eight language versions besides the English one. Please note also the historic background of this term which is in sync with the common definition). What you describe as "common" is a framing. Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché.
- the_af 5y ago
  > How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. > That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché. I understand that's the gist of your argument. I'm just saying it's also a convenient defense deployed by people who engage in conspiracy theories, a sister defense of the old "you're narrow minded!". If something is a conspiracy theory, it's not a TTC to call it one.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    > It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. That's a fair point. Actually that's a good question! I've suggested an explanation already. >> Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. It's also notable that the German version of the Wikipedia proposes two distinct terms to resolve the ambiguity in the usage of the more and more blurred term "conspiracy theory": "conspiracy hypotheses" and "conspiracy myths". But I wouldn't call those terms common in any sense… (Indeed, as a native speaker I've never heard of those).
    - elcapitan 5y ago
      "Conspiracy myth" has been introduced in German media mostly to denounce conspiracy theories as "not even theories". It's itself loaded language, ironically.
      - still_grokking 5y ago
        But at least you wouldn't have to argue about the meaning of that term. You can just outright refuse it and say that the thing that is talked about is in fact a conspiracy hypothesis. It would make discussion more easy. The term "conspiracy theory" may in fact be ambiguous to some folks. The other terms aren't. Only that almost nobody uses them (or I just don't know, as I'm avoiding most of the main stream media because of the constant bombardment with propaganda BS).