The Real Wizard wrote:thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
When looking at conspiracy theories, it is *extremely* important to find out where they started. Conspiracy nuts, so critical of every kind of information except their own, never do that. It is so important to know, because conspiracy theories are rarely harmless, those originally propagating them rarely believe in them, and they always serve some ulterior purpose, closely related to the ideology of those who start them. The simple fact of the matter is that, depending on what kind of conspiracy theory it is, they nearly all start in the same place
Excellent summation of the mentality.
But labeling every viewpoint that goes against the grain as a conspiracy theory is an equally dangerous precedent. It assumes that every government and every corporation has told the truth about every issue that remains under debate.
Agreed, but I think that such views as posted by the topic starter definitely qualify as conspiracy theories. There is, naturally, a great grey divide between the plausible and the far-out, and it can often be difficult to discern the outrageous from the unconventional, and so we should indeed be careful in applying the label 'conspiracy theory'.
Incidentally, what I find very interesting is the way evidence (or the lack thereof) is treated in conspiracy theories: the absence of evidence in support of the theory is regarded as clear proof of a cover-up, whereas any present evidence against it is also considered evidence of a cover-up. That is an interesting position from a hermeneutical point of view.