People always think that "conspiracy theory" is about conclusions, when it's actually about methodology.
It doesn't matter that certain conspiracy nutjobs happened to be correct about something. That's inevitable. The breadth and scope of conspiracy theories is such that some of them are bound to be correct purely by random chance.
What makes something a "conspiracy theory" isn't claim being made, but how that claim is backed up. "9/11 was an inside job" is not automatically a conspiracy theory, but 9/11 truthers fit the mold because they use decidedly irrational techniques to support their claims. "The moon landing was faked" is not automatically a conspiracy theory, but the people who believe it universally use bad reasoning to do so. Likewise, "the government is spying on everyone" is not automatically a conspiracy theory, but if people use conspiracy-style reasoning to support the claim, it's a conspiracy theory even if it ends up being correct.
Conspiracy theories involve massive application of various logical fallacies, such as ignoring the fact that unlikely events still occur due to chance, focusing on successes and ignoring failures (i.e. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy), ignoring any explanation of facts that does not fit the desired conclusion, and just plain non sequiturs.
A lot of people who were talking about government surveillance back in the day fit this pattern. The fact that they were right does not change the fact that their reasoning was bad.
Many people were talking about it without fitting this pattern, by using sanity and reason. Those are the ones to pay attention to.
When you see somebody labeling something as a "conspiracy theory", look at the mechanics of the argument being made, rather than the conclusion. For example, in this case we have a comment that states, "Dangerous political prisoners/personalities dying in mysterious circumstances at opportune times is not coincidence." Well, that's classic conspiracy thinking. Coincidences can and do happen, all the time. Do people get assassinated sometimes? Yes. Do important people die at extremely convenient times purely due to natural causes? Also yes. Thus, while the fact that somebody died at a convenient time can be suggestive, it is not conclusive.
Even if Arafat was assassinated, it can still be a conspiracy theory to say it if the argument is done in a certain way. Saying that Arafat must have been assassinated because he died at a certain time is nonsense. Saying that Arafat must have been assassinated because his bones were filled with Polonium is reasonable.
To shut down complaints about the first kind of argument because the second kind of argument also exists in parallel is awful.
It doesn't matter that certain conspiracy nutjobs happened to be correct about something. That's inevitable. The breadth and scope of conspiracy theories is such that some of them are bound to be correct purely by random chance.
What makes something a "conspiracy theory" isn't claim being made, but how that claim is backed up. "9/11 was an inside job" is not automatically a conspiracy theory, but 9/11 truthers fit the mold because they use decidedly irrational techniques to support their claims. "The moon landing was faked" is not automatically a conspiracy theory, but the people who believe it universally use bad reasoning to do so. Likewise, "the government is spying on everyone" is not automatically a conspiracy theory, but if people use conspiracy-style reasoning to support the claim, it's a conspiracy theory even if it ends up being correct.
Conspiracy theories involve massive application of various logical fallacies, such as ignoring the fact that unlikely events still occur due to chance, focusing on successes and ignoring failures (i.e. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy), ignoring any explanation of facts that does not fit the desired conclusion, and just plain non sequiturs.
A lot of people who were talking about government surveillance back in the day fit this pattern. The fact that they were right does not change the fact that their reasoning was bad.
Many people were talking about it without fitting this pattern, by using sanity and reason. Those are the ones to pay attention to.
When you see somebody labeling something as a "conspiracy theory", look at the mechanics of the argument being made, rather than the conclusion. For example, in this case we have a comment that states, "Dangerous political prisoners/personalities dying in mysterious circumstances at opportune times is not coincidence." Well, that's classic conspiracy thinking. Coincidences can and do happen, all the time. Do people get assassinated sometimes? Yes. Do important people die at extremely convenient times purely due to natural causes? Also yes. Thus, while the fact that somebody died at a convenient time can be suggestive, it is not conclusive.
Even if Arafat was assassinated, it can still be a conspiracy theory to say it if the argument is done in a certain way. Saying that Arafat must have been assassinated because he died at a certain time is nonsense. Saying that Arafat must have been assassinated because his bones were filled with Polonium is reasonable.
To shut down complaints about the first kind of argument because the second kind of argument also exists in parallel is awful.