https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Walker's_five_kinds
Walker's five kinds
Jesse Walker (2013) has identified five kinds of conspiracy theories:
- The "Enemy Outside" refers to theories based on figures alleged to be scheming against a community from without.
- The "Enemy Within" finds the conspirators lurking inside the nation, indistinguishable from ordinary citizens.
- The "Enemy Above" involves powerful people manipulating events for their own gain.
- The "Enemy Below" features the lower classes working to overturn the social order.
- The "Benevolent Conspiracies" are angelic forces that work behind the scenes to improve the world and help people.[27]
Barkun's three types
Michael Barkun has identified three classifications of conspiracy theory:
- Event conspiracy theories. This refers to limited and well-defined events. Examples may include such conspiracies theories as those concerning the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, and the spread of AIDS.[28]
- Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church.[28]
- Superconspiracy theories. For Barkun, such theories link multiple alleged conspiracies together hierarchically. At the summit is a distant but all-powerful evil force. His cited examples are the ideas of David Icke and Milton William Cooper.[28]
Rothbard: shallow vs. deep
Murray Rothbard argues in favor of a model that contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories to "shallow" ones. According to Rothbard, a "shallow" theorist observes an event and asks
Cui bono? ("Who benefits?"), jumping to the conclusion that a posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly influencing events. On the other hand, the "deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out evidence. Rothbard describes this latter activity as a matter of confirming with certain facts one's initial paranoia.
[29]
Evidence vs. conspiracy theory
Belief in conspiracy theories is generally based not on evidence, but in the faith of the believer.
[7] Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory to
institutional analysis which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or
mainstream media reports.
[30] Conspiracy theory conversely posits the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculates on their alleged activities.
[31][32]
Clare Birchall at
King's College London describes conspiracy theory as a "form of popular knowledge or interpretation".
[a] The use of the word 'knowledge' here suggests ways in which conspiracy theory may be considered in relation to legitimate modes of knowing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#cite_note-35 The relationship between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge, Birchall claims, is closer than common dismissals of conspiracy theory contend.[34]
Theories involving multiple conspirators that are proven to be correct, such as the Watergate scandal, are usually referred to as "investigative journalism" or "historical analysis" rather than conspiracy theory.[35] By contrast, the term "Watergate conspiracy theory" is used to refer to a variety of hypotheses in which those convicted in the conspiracy were in fact the victims of a deeper conspiracy.[36]
I define it as all options being put on the table. The investigation of those 'options' removes the parts that are bullshit. You and other trolls around her remove the facts and only push the bullshit and when that is challenged by anybody you goo full troll rather than present some facts. If you thought I would let it slide like some long forgotten members you were wrong. Being a liar and getting challenged is not a good combination, but then you and the other liars already know that. What is missing is the protection that used to be allowed as well as backed by the mods themselves, the ones that should have banned themselves as they were the biggest trolls.
A grain of truth is many more times destructive than a ton of bullshit.