The term is probably being used too freely, but that would hardly distinguish it from a dozen other concepts in current political discourse, and we will not und

The term is probably being used too freely, but that would hardly distinguish it from a dozen other concepts in current political discourse, and we will not understand the phenomenon if we insist on it being rooted in rational distrust, and also ignore how useful they may be for people with ulterior motives. We are not rational beings; we are still mostly creatures of instinct, with the ability to be rational. The latter brings with it the ability to rationalize. We all, to some extent, prefer to hold beliefs that imply outcomes we prefer (or, equivalently, dispel undesirable outcomes), and that can lead us to take positions on that basis, rather than on what the evidence supports. That, in itself, would not be a conspiracy theory, as there are many cases where the evidence is inconclusive. The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is, firstly, the doubling-down on a belief despite evidence to the contrary or a lack of supporting evidence that should be there, and secondly, a particular form of rationalization for doing so, which says the evidence must be fabricated or suppressed, as necessary. All considerations are subordinated to the goal of preserving the initial belief. Anyone with a passing familiarity with 20th-century history has enough evidence to see how promulgating conspiracy theories can help nefarious actors, and also how they work.