2 ms·

How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? (I've checked eight language versions besides th

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).
      - elcapitan 5y ago
        The problem with introduction of terms like "conspiracy myth" from the official/media side is that it's kind of reinforcing the notion that "they" are trying to "hide" it, just this time with language manipulation, so it's pretty much counterproductive, or preaching to the choir. There seems to be an obsession in recent years with cleaning up language in a symbolic way, as if that would actually change reality.

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).
    - elcapitan 5y ago
      The problem with introduction of terms like "conspiracy myth" from the official/media side is that it's kind of reinforcing the notion that "they" are trying to "hide" it, just this time with language manipulation, so it's pretty much counterproductive, or preaching to the choir. There seems to be an obsession in recent years with cleaning up language in a symbolic way, as if that would actually change reality.