> I've come to be disgusted by the term "conspiracy theory" in ways I used to not be. It's overused now and seems now to serve mainly as a sort of rhetorical po

> I've come to be disgusted by the term "conspiracy theory" in ways I used to not be. It's overused now and seems now to serve mainly as a sort of rhetorical power or status assertion. Someone's fears or beliefs are labeled "conspiracy" if they contradict some normative belief held by a dominant group with which the speaker identifies. I've noticed this on the conservative as well as liberal spectrum. > What's changed my mind is realizing how often things that might be labeled as conspiracy theory actually happen. Even if something didn't happen, many of the fears are actually well grounded and labeling them as such in my opinion reflects a certain amount of lack of empathy on the part of the labeler. > I'm not saying certain beliefs aren't absurd or physically implausible etc. But if they are plausible they're often coming from somewhere reasonable. Widespread conspiracy theories tell you that a large segment of the population doesn't trust something, and the appropriate response is to figure out why that thing might be untrustworthy. > I agree with the linked article, and understand that they are writing to a specific audience. But it has a patronizing tone that I think just reinforces the problems involved. If there's a widespread conspiracy belief, it's not enough to say to have "empathy" for someone who holds it, as that casts the problem as being with the person rather than the things that caused them to lose trust to begin with. You need to be asking why such large parts of the population distrust the subject of the conspiracy and address that. I don't know if you have any "conspiracy theorists" in your close circles. One of my former friends has really gone done the deep end, and why you could argue that some of the arguments are funded in reasonable doubts, the whole world view is not. It is absolutely impossible to have any discussion with him, every argument is countered with "you can not trust mainstream, science media, people..." while at the same time those same sources get used easily for their own arguments. And it usually is not just one, there is 9/11, vaccinations being used by Bill Gates to steralize people, free vacuum energy, covid. At the same time he sees himself at the forefront of defending against a new emergence of nazism while supporting people who have literally been filmed doing a Hitler salute (supposedly that was "out of context"). It is true that these people are victims, but they are victims of propaganda who pull people toward more and more outrageous claims, and a social media machine which develops the most addictive media techniques and no care for the overall affect on society.