4 ms·

> The Google ngram for 'conspiracy theory' [2] is also quite telling. I disagree that it's telling. It could have replaced a previous term. What did people cal

> The Google ngram for 'conspiracy theory' [2] is also quite telling. I disagree that it's telling. It could have replaced a previous term. What did people call helicopter parents before there were helicopters? We know there were conspiracy theorists well before even the First Red Scare - Henry Ford believed in the international Jewish conspiracy theory, as described by the fabricated antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written ca. 1900. Or, from "Conspiracy Theories Abounded in 19th-Century American Politics" at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/conspiracy-theories-abounded-19th-century-american-politics-180971940/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/conspiracy-theories-a... : "conspiracies flourished in the 1820s and 1830s, when modern-day American political parties developed, and the expansion of white male suffrage increased the nation’s voting base. These new parties, which included the Democrats, the National Republicans, the Anti-Masons, and the Whigs, frequently used conspiracy accusations as a political tool to capture new voters—ultimately bringing about a recession and a collapse of public trust in the democratic process." Since you mentioned Kennedy, President Garfield's assassination also resulted in conspiracies, including using the term "conspiracy theory". From https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192453115?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/1924531... : > Conspiracy theories have been around for a long time, though how long is a matter of debate. As for the concept of conspiracy theory, it might seem reasonable to expect a more exact answer about the moment of its emergence. When do we first find people talking and writing about conspiracy theories? While much of the literature points to the twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper and his famous work The Open Society and Its Enemies (1st edition: 1945), newspaper databases allow us to locate earlier occurrences of “conspiracy theory.” They reveal that the term proliferates in newspapers from the 1870s onward, particularly after the assassination of President Garfield in July 1881. What can this discovery then tell us about the modern-day phenomenon of conspiracy theories? The full text, available at https://archive.org/details/uscinski-conspiracy-theories-and-the-people-who-believe-them/page/n89/mode/2up?q=garfield https://archive.org/details/uscinski-conspiracy-theories-and... , says "First occurrence of CTs related to assassination of Garfield: "One of the conspiracy theories has been exploded," Boston Journal, July 12, 1881." The article goes into depth on the context behind the word "theory" for this sort of description, at https://archive.org/details/uscinski-conspiracy-theories-and-the-people-who-believe-them/page/n95/mode/2up?q=%22theory+in+the+newspapers%22 https://archive.org/details/uscinski-conspiracy-theories-and... with examples of "murder theory", "abduction theory", and "fraud theory" before going into details about publications of a conspiracy theory "linking Guiteau to a circle of undiscovered and unidentified associates ... that foreshadows the later shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby—Guiteau himself became the target of an attempt on his life a few days after his trial began in November 1881, speculation once more arose about a conspiracy." Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

somenameforme 3y ago
Prior to the 60s, the term was occasionally used but there was no particularly negative connotation by default. Views and arguments would weighed on their own merit instead of this sort of weird and dystopic 'oh my gosh, that's a conspiracy theory - you can't think that' style of thought which pervades in some circles in the West. The COVID lab leak was probably the best example of this. Lab leaks happen disconcertingly more frequently than most realize [1], even at the highest security biolabs. And COVID emerged not only right next to China's only existing BSL-4 (top biosecurity level) biolab, but one that was actively experimenting with bat derived coronaviruses and how they might be able to be spread to humans. Then the US government decided to declare COVID must have had a natural origin, and a lab leak was an impossible conspiracy theory. This is probably in part because of geopolitics and part because we were also providing funding for said experimentation. In any case, it had little to do with the merits of a lab leak. But because some people have gained this sort of thoughtless aversion to "conspiracy theory" they refused to even consider such things, but would actually attack others for doing so. Not only was it a conspiracy theory, but a dangerous one that had to be censored from all public discussion and discourse. Even the 'fact checkers' said so! Until one day, the official position changed, most likely due to shifting geopolitical visions, and suddenly the impossible conspiracy theory was the defacto standard position. There was no silver bullet or major revelation, just a shift in the "official position" for opaque rationale, probably related to our perceived future relationship with China, or lack thereof. In the past this never would have happened because well it was pretty dang obvious that it coming from a lab was by far the most probable scenario. But to some in modern times, going against the "official position" on something is little different than claiming the Earth is flat, and that's a catastrophic decline of critical thinking which greatly benefits the political establishment. For some they have become not only the arbiters of truth, but even of thought itself. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
- eesmith 3y ago
  > the term was occasionally used but there was no particularly negative connotation by default. I think you have completely failed to understand my point, so I will try again. It does not matter that the current term "conspiracy theory" with its current negative meaning was not common before, to choose one date, 1945 when Popper used "conspiracy theory of society" in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Just because the modern term did not exist, doesn't mean the underlying human behavior did not exist before then. (Indeed, Popper is describing something already present before 1945.) Surely there were helicopter parents before there were helicopters. Surely there were conspiracy theories before the modern phrase "conspiracy theory" was used. Which is why I pointed to conspiracy theories of the early 1800s to show that your 1960s n-gram date does not mean there was a deep cultural change. It could simply be a newly popular turn of phrase to describe an age-old concept. > 'oh my gosh, that's a conspiracy theory - you can't think that' style of thought which pervades in some circles in the West. Right, but we're talking about one specific point - the idea that there's widespread weather control using "chemtrails" to cause a drought in Spain, and a conspiracy to keep that silent, and harassment of meteorologists believed to be members of that conspiracy - and THIS circle - HN commenters. That you have your own views about other conspiracies and other circles is not something I want to engage in. THIS conspiracy theory about weather control is not tenable. I am more than willing to believe there was a conspiracy to hide the negative effects of cigarette smoking. The evidence for that conspiracy theory is substantial. There are many other conspiracies that I agree occurred, including the conspiracy to convince Americans that streets are for cars, not people, the conspiracy to keep the illegal bombings of Cambodia quiet, the conspiracy to hide the negative effects of CO2 pollution, and the conspiracy to prevent racial mixing in the US though methods like red-lining. However, I believe these conspiracy theories because 1) they are within the realm of possibility, and 2) there is good evidence for them. Quite a contrast from this weather-modification conspiracy theory! > But to some in modern times, going against the "official position" Why do you care more about the nameless, unknown "some" concerning an "official position" about some random unspecified conspiracy theory than you care about the named meteorologists who are being harassed by weather control conspiracy theory believers, when that specific conspiracy theory has no basis in reality?

somenameforme 3y ago

Prior to the 60s, the term was occasionally used but there was no particularly negative connotation by default. Views and arguments would weighed on their own merit instead of this sort of weird and dystopic 'oh my gosh, that's a conspiracy theory - you can't think that' style of thought which pervades in some circles in the West. The COVID lab leak was probably the best example of this. Lab leaks happen disconcertingly more frequently than most realize [1], even at the highest security biolabs. And COVID emerged not only right next to China's only existing BSL-4 (top biosecurity level) biolab, but one that was actively experimenting with bat derived coronaviruses and how they might be able to be spread to humans. Then the US government decided to declare COVID must have had a natural origin, and a lab leak was an impossible conspiracy theory. This is probably in part because of geopolitics and part because we were also providing funding for said experimentation. In any case, it had little to do with the merits of a lab leak. But because some people have gained this sort of thoughtless aversion to "conspiracy theory" they refused to even consider such things, but would actually attack others for doing so. Not only was it a conspiracy theory, but a dangerous one that had to be censored from all public discussion and discourse. Even the 'fact checkers' said so! Until one day, the official position changed, most likely due to shifting geopolitical visions, and suddenly the impossible conspiracy theory was the defacto standard position. There was no silver bullet or major revelation, just a shift in the "official position" for opaque rationale, probably related to our perceived future relationship with China, or lack thereof. In the past this never would have happened because well it was pretty dang obvious that it coming from a lab was by far the most probable scenario. But to some in modern times, going against the "official position" on something is little different than claiming the Earth is flat, and that's a catastrophic decline of critical thinking which greatly benefits the political establishment. For some they have become not only the arbiters of truth, but even of thought itself. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

eesmith 3y ago
> the term was occasionally used but there was no particularly negative connotation by default. I think you have completely failed to understand my point, so I will try again. It does not matter that the current term "conspiracy theory" with its current negative meaning was not common before, to choose one date, 1945 when Popper used "conspiracy theory of society" in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Just because the modern term did not exist, doesn't mean the underlying human behavior did not exist before then. (Indeed, Popper is describing something already present before 1945.) Surely there were helicopter parents before there were helicopters. Surely there were conspiracy theories before the modern phrase "conspiracy theory" was used. Which is why I pointed to conspiracy theories of the early 1800s to show that your 1960s n-gram date does not mean there was a deep cultural change. It could simply be a newly popular turn of phrase to describe an age-old concept. > 'oh my gosh, that's a conspiracy theory - you can't think that' style of thought which pervades in some circles in the West. Right, but we're talking about one specific point - the idea that there's widespread weather control using "chemtrails" to cause a drought in Spain, and a conspiracy to keep that silent, and harassment of meteorologists believed to be members of that conspiracy - and THIS circle - HN commenters. That you have your own views about other conspiracies and other circles is not something I want to engage in. THIS conspiracy theory about weather control is not tenable. I am more than willing to believe there was a conspiracy to hide the negative effects of cigarette smoking. The evidence for that conspiracy theory is substantial. There are many other conspiracies that I agree occurred, including the conspiracy to convince Americans that streets are for cars, not people, the conspiracy to keep the illegal bombings of Cambodia quiet, the conspiracy to hide the negative effects of CO2 pollution, and the conspiracy to prevent racial mixing in the US though methods like red-lining. However, I believe these conspiracy theories because 1) they are within the realm of possibility, and 2) there is good evidence for them. Quite a contrast from this weather-modification conspiracy theory! > But to some in modern times, going against the "official position" Why do you care more about the nameless, unknown "some" concerning an "official position" about some random unspecified conspiracy theory than you care about the named meteorologists who are being harassed by weather control conspiracy theory believers, when that specific conspiracy theory has no basis in reality?