Conspiracy Theorist
Technically, a conspiracy hypothesizer.
In the modern technological age, it is strange how frequently they are someone we publicly denounce as a paranoid deviant today, but is revealed to have made an accurate prediction six months from now. We remain conspicuously silent when this occurs. We enjoyed the divisive and destructive part when we were part of the majority, but we refuse to make amends because our pride simply will not let us.
An ad hominem slur directed at others who are likely more well-informed than us so we can avoid having to debate them. This defensive strategy is employed to conceal our own ignorance about a topic that we profess to understand, but would fail to effectively justify or argue our position on.
This is not to infer that such thinkers hold coherent conclusions, but they have typically spent a great deal more time examining a subject than most people, especially those who would insult them. We want to be right without doing any work, without earning our position, and we will destroy anyone who threatens it. We would have to admit that we are merely regurgitating public speaking points while masquerading as informed.
So-called theorists are no different than anyone else, EXPERT or otherwise: they pay basic attention to things, recognize a pattern that emerges, and make speculations about what it means. Regardless of the mind that conjures it, every conclusion is up for debate, and we should remain suspicious about those who have decided for us that theirs should be accepted at face value. If our ideas are high quality and persuasive, then it should be easy enough for us to articulate them. If we cannot, or if we simply do not feel compelled, then others should rightfully ignore us. We are not owed trust or allegiance by anyone, it is earned, and even then, our conclusions are often contaminated by a litany of human shortcomings.
A relatively simple oversight with respect to conspiracy theorists is that they are, in many ways, far better advocates for human competence and ingenuity than anyone else. While it may be considered incorrect to ascribe to malice that which may be explained by incompetence, such thinkers are giving elites much more credit than everyone else. This is often described as paranoia. The truth is that those who target such thinkers generally tend to take lazy shortcuts - delegitimize others with cogency, not with fallacies. Some theorists are paranoid, but most are not, and they are not effectively dismissed simply because of reactionary skepticism and name calling.
Conspiracy theorists are the skeptics in this equation, and being skeptical about their skepticism is not skepticism at all; it is a confession of our faith to an orthodoxy. Faith in a mainstream narrative is not a superior epistemology to borderline paranoid conspiratorial thinking. This seems to be lost on many. Conspiracy theorists simply have more faith in the capacity of elites and organizations to maintain a degree of subversion and control that many do not share. This does not make them crazy; they are just a distinct denomination. They believe more in both the excellence and susceptibility of humanity than anyone, they just believe that real and tangible authority is not always being exercised in the interest of the public. History confirms their suspicions in a manner that does not support naysayers.
The purpose of such slurs is consistent among all ad hominems: a refusal to deal with content. We are hoping that if we can delegitimize the totality of a person by classifying them in such a manner, then we will never have to be confronted with the fact that we do not understand issues about which we hold views.
Something is not founded because it is common. Popularity is not evidence.
See: DARK TRIAD, SHERLOCK HOLMES
Posted: 30 Dec 2022
