> "Conspiracies exist, therefore my pet conspiracy theory should be treated seriously by default" is the fallacy. I think it is worth mentioning that this fall

> "Conspiracies exist, therefore my pet conspiracy theory should be treated seriously by default" is the fallacy. I think it is worth mentioning that this fallacy manifests in at least two forms: 1. When a conspiracy theorist actually says it (I have never encountered it despite spending substantial amount of time in various conspiracy theory forums). As a general rule, when a non-conspiracy theorist is describing things that happen in the conspiracy world (where they do not go), it is safe to assume that they have lost control of their imagination, and this is usually extremely obvious from their description. See: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology... 2. When someone other than a conspiracy theorists imagines that a conspiracy theorist (typically also imagined, but not always) has said it or believes it (neither of which is required to true for it to be perceived as true). I don't see anything upthread that "the fallacy" could be referring to in this instance. It is perhaps also worth noting that "should be treated seriously by default" isn't actually all that bizarre (depending on the conspiracy theory, of course) - take something seriously is very different from believe to be necessarily true, though at the perceptual level things that are different can appear to be identical, and vice versa.