To reveal bias, I believe that a conspiracy theory is a hypothesis about a covert plot by more than one individual.)
What always bugs me: attibuting 9/11 to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda is as much a conspiracy theory as it is attributing it to the government. Yet generally only the latter is classified as a “conspiracy theory”.
No they aren’t. When most people use the term “conspiracy theory” they generally mean larger scale, not obvious individuals, and with motivations that are more obscure. There’s some level of denotation v. connotation here.
I agree with you about connotations being relevant, but my sense is that the most important connotation here is “low status.”
At least in the U.S., attributing 9/11 to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda is a relatively mainstream belief, as for a time was attributing it to Hussein/Iraq (although the two theories were not considered mutually exclusive among communities that embraced the latter); consequently we don’t describe either as a “conspiracy theory” Attributing it to, say, Basque terrorists—or even to the specific leader of an ETA cell, or whatever—would be labelled a “conspiracy theory” if an otherwise unremarkable person did it, but not if the President did… or, more precisely, anyone who labelled it a “conspiracy theory” when the President did it would be attempting to lower the President’s credibility/status by so doing.
What always bugs me: attibuting 9/11 to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda is as much a conspiracy theory as it is attributing it to the government. Yet generally only the latter is classified as a “conspiracy theory”.
No they aren’t. When most people use the term “conspiracy theory” they generally mean larger scale, not obvious individuals, and with motivations that are more obscure. There’s some level of denotation v. connotation here.
I agree with you about connotations being relevant, but my sense is that the most important connotation here is “low status.”
At least in the U.S., attributing 9/11 to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda is a relatively mainstream belief, as for a time was attributing it to Hussein/Iraq (although the two theories were not considered mutually exclusive among communities that embraced the latter); consequently we don’t describe either as a “conspiracy theory” Attributing it to, say, Basque terrorists—or even to the specific leader of an ETA cell, or whatever—would be labelled a “conspiracy theory” if an otherwise unremarkable person did it, but not if the President did… or, more precisely, anyone who labelled it a “conspiracy theory” when the President did it would be attempting to lower the President’s credibility/status by so doing.