Yesterday I made a mistake. I’ve got a cold and I was tired. They aren’t excuses, but they’re reasons. I’m sorry. To elaborate further: A thread was posted in which the OP questioned the thinking behind ‘conspiracy theories’. This annoyed me but crucially I didn’t take the time to consider the depth of my annoyance and the reasons behind it. On the face of it, it annoyed me because it’s lazy thinking. It’s thinking we see quite frequently hereabouts when someone, typically of faith, writes ‘why do atheists..?’ or a particularly misogynistic bigot writes ‘why do feminists..?’ It’s as though atheists and feminists are each homogenous masses open to discussion and critique without any subtlety or discernment for the individuals that make up the populations. I’d like to suggest however that ‘conspiracy theorist’ is an even worse term. On the one hand many feminists use that particular label about themselves; many atheists the same. Yet I’ve never heard of anyone other than the most juvenile YouTube addict refer to themselves as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Scratch that: I’ve never heard them do it either. It seems the term serves solely to disparage and mock. As such it has no place here. In terms of language it’s akin to the term ‘n****r’ – there is nothing positive about it. That’s where I made my mistake. I let the OP slide; I allowed the thread to continue. I didn’t sit back and think clearly about the implications of the language – I just reacted to it on the same level. Sorry. I tried to make a subtle point early on in the thread that parodied the phrasing of the OP but this wasn’t picked up. Instead, the thread degenerated into pop-psychology and all-encompassing critiques of the imagined mental peculiarities of ‘conspiracy theorists’. (As a parallel, can you imagine the level of insult and how much outcry would be drawn from a thread beginning ‘why are n****rs good at sports?’) I suggest that the two are in fact comparable. In addition, in terms of accuracy and utility the term is meaningless anyway. What defines a ‘conspiracy theorist’? Someone who believes that more than a single person was involved in the murder of J.F.K? Someone who believes that the US had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? Both run contrary to the official paradigm yet many would feel that both are commonly accepted alternative explanations of significant historical events. Are you therefore a ‘conspiracy theorist’? How do you feel about that? So from now on, for my part, I will be reacting very firmly to any instances of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’. Anyone using it will instantly be told to edit and clarify their terms or be offered the option of deleting their own thread or comment. I feel this is fair as marginalising a population before it even gets to make a case for its own existence must be one of the most vicious and cruel acts imaginable in a civilised forum.
Posted on: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:45:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015