I am suggesting that the way he is using “conspiracy theory” amounts to a fnord . It doesn’t appear to have much more content than “conspiracy theory I don’t believe in” and as such is as much about him as it is about the theory. As.such I suggest that discussion is unlikely to be productive unless better terms are used.
I pointed out a couple particular theories that are (a) ludicrous and (b) have a significant number of people who believe them.
I’d agree “conspiracies” happen all the time. But believing there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza or that Bush ordered 9/11 is a special case of absurd belief.
I am suggesting that the way he is using “conspiracy theory” amounts to a fnord . It doesn’t appear to have much more content than “conspiracy theory I don’t believe in” and as such is as much about him as it is about the theory. As.such I suggest that discussion is unlikely to be productive unless better terms are used.
I pointed out a couple particular theories that are (a) ludicrous and (b) have a significant number of people who believe them.
I’d agree “conspiracies” happen all the time. But believing there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza or that Bush ordered 9/11 is a special case of absurd belief.
So, basically you don’t understand the argument he’s making and therefore try to talk about something else?