Thanks Richard, I very much appreciate this cornucopia of information and reasoning about conspiracy theories.
Do you think it possible that there will ever be a flip (ie., inversion) of the prevailing deprecatory connotation of “conspiracy theorist” to a positive one - for example, from the implication that the person is a paranoid fool with bad character to that of someone inclined toward skeptical but truth-oriented belief formation?
Possible, yes. Probable? Probably not so long as there is Establishment control over social institutions and their narratives.
I've been meaning to keep track of attempts to take back or reframe the conspiracy label, such as "conspiracy realist," "conspiracy investigator," and the like. I see memes and comments every once in a while to that effect, and while I understand and largely agree with the intent and sentiment, institutional insiders and adherents to "the narrative" likely view it as an infantile or futile attempt to skirt the conspiracy label, which they view as legitimate. This was, essentially, the thesis of my dissertation: What is considered a legitimate conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory is a matter of relative proximity to society's legitimating institutions, i.e. government, education, media, etc. When insiders are caught lying or distorting facts, their "errors" are either ignored or explained away. When "conspiracy theorists" are wrong on relatively minute details, e.g., saying WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed rather than free fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds, their explanations are entirely dismissed and categorized among the Loch Ness monster, Elvis lives, and hollow/flat Earth theories. Researching and understanding the depths and nuances of 9/11, the Douma chemical attack, Epstein, Hunter Biden, 2020 election, COVID-19 origins etc. etc. etc. is far too taxing for average and below average people, and above average people work for elites and the Establishment to defend and promote narratives funded and organized with abundant resources - the professionals and experts who write books and articles on "conspiracy theories" are dismissed as cranks, ignored entirely, or run through the propaganda mills designed to demonize and destroy such people. So, as I discussed in my doctoral work, the conspiracy label functions as an ideological assault tactic on an already uneven discursive battlefield. But, there's hope: In the past 15 years I've been studying this, I've never seen as many people as now who are openly talking about such matters, and there are whistleblowers and insiders who are now emboldened to speak out. I could go on and on.
Thanks Richard, I very much appreciate this cornucopia of information and reasoning about conspiracy theories.
Do you think it possible that there will ever be a flip (ie., inversion) of the prevailing deprecatory connotation of “conspiracy theorist” to a positive one - for example, from the implication that the person is a paranoid fool with bad character to that of someone inclined toward skeptical but truth-oriented belief formation?
And thank you for the comment and question!
Possible, yes. Probable? Probably not so long as there is Establishment control over social institutions and their narratives.
I've been meaning to keep track of attempts to take back or reframe the conspiracy label, such as "conspiracy realist," "conspiracy investigator," and the like. I see memes and comments every once in a while to that effect, and while I understand and largely agree with the intent and sentiment, institutional insiders and adherents to "the narrative" likely view it as an infantile or futile attempt to skirt the conspiracy label, which they view as legitimate. This was, essentially, the thesis of my dissertation: What is considered a legitimate conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory is a matter of relative proximity to society's legitimating institutions, i.e. government, education, media, etc. When insiders are caught lying or distorting facts, their "errors" are either ignored or explained away. When "conspiracy theorists" are wrong on relatively minute details, e.g., saying WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed rather than free fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds, their explanations are entirely dismissed and categorized among the Loch Ness monster, Elvis lives, and hollow/flat Earth theories. Researching and understanding the depths and nuances of 9/11, the Douma chemical attack, Epstein, Hunter Biden, 2020 election, COVID-19 origins etc. etc. etc. is far too taxing for average and below average people, and above average people work for elites and the Establishment to defend and promote narratives funded and organized with abundant resources - the professionals and experts who write books and articles on "conspiracy theories" are dismissed as cranks, ignored entirely, or run through the propaganda mills designed to demonize and destroy such people. So, as I discussed in my doctoral work, the conspiracy label functions as an ideological assault tactic on an already uneven discursive battlefield. But, there's hope: In the past 15 years I've been studying this, I've never seen as many people as now who are openly talking about such matters, and there are whistleblowers and insiders who are now emboldened to speak out. I could go on and on.