Let's not forget the title of the thread – it's not about conspiracy theories; it's about the THEORISTS and what to do about them discussion of a theory is actually off topic in most cases..... I've just read a couple of articles offering advice on how to deal with conspiracy theorists. The recommended approach is remarkably civilised. Be patient. Be empathetic. Don't ridicule them. Ask questions. Find common ground. Understand their concerns. Examine their sources. Challenge the evidence. Don't expect to change their minds. In other words, apparently when someone arrives announcing that Big Pharma, governments, the WHO, the media, billionaires, scientists and probably the bloke who delivers the newspapers are all part of one enormous plot, we're supposed to respond like a kindly therapist. “And how does that make you feel?” We're advised to ask: “What evidence would convince you that you're wrong?” This is particularly entertaining because, with the committed conspiracy theorist, the answer is usually: Nothing. That's because conspiracy thinking comes with its own beautifully constructed escape hatch. No evidence? They're hiding it. Evidence against it? That's what they want you to believe. Scientists disagree? They're bought. Scientists agree? They're all in on it. Fact-checker debunks it? Paid shill. Government denies it? Confirmation of the cover-up. You produce 47 independent sources? “Do your own research.” And if you ask for their evidence? YouTube link. At this point you've discovered the remarkable intellectual advantage of the conspiracy theory: It cannot lose. - Reality can contradict it endlessly and somehow the conspiracy emerges stronger. - But here's the bit apparently being missed in this thread. The subject isn't conspiracy theories. It's CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. That's quite an important distinction. A theory is a proposition that can be tested against evidence. A theorist is the person who constructs, promotes and defends the proposition. And that distinction matters because we've already seen many of the standard techniques on display: Cherry-picking. Only the convenient evidence gets invited to the party. Gish galloping. Throw 25 claims into one post and demand that somebody else spend three hours debunking them. Moving the goalposts. Refute claim A, and suddenly we're discussing B, C and something somebody said on YouTube in 2017. Appeal to authority. “Doctor X says…” — conveniently omitting that Doctor X is a retired dentist discussing virology on Facebook. False equivalence. One dissenting opinion is supposedly worth the same as decades of accumulated evidence. Just asking questions. Not actually making an argument, merely spraying insinuations everywhere and expecting someone else to disprove them. The Gish gallop's more paranoid cousin: “Have you looked into...?” Followed by a list longer than a Thai visa application. And then there's the ultimate trump card: “You can't prove I'm wrong.” No. That's not how this works. - The person making the extraordinary claim has the responsibility to provide the evidence. Otherwise I can announce that invisible purple elephants control the Bank of Thailand and demand that you prove they don't. And if you fail? Congratulations. Purple elephants confirmed. And here's the really fascinating part. - Conspiracy theorists frequently describe themselves as independent thinkers. They are questioning everything. They don't blindly follow the crowd. They have done their research. They are asking questions nobody else dares to ask. Yet somehow thousands of people who have never met each other manage to arrive at exactly the same conclusions, using exactly the same YouTube videos, memes, dubious websites and recycled Facebook screenshots. That's not independent thinking. - That's a subscription service. And anyone who challenges it is immediately labelled a: “sheeple” “NPC” “leftie” “mainstream media puppet” “pharma shill” “government stooge” Apparently the great independent thinkers have a remarkably comprehensive collection of pre-packaged insults. So what should we actually do? The academic answer is: Remain calm. Be patient. Encourage critical thinking. Establish common ground. Don't mock. Fine. Try that. But there comes a point where repeatedly explaining evidence to somebody who has already decided that evidence is part of the conspiracy becomes less like debate and more like feeding a slot machine that only accepts goalposts. At that point, perhaps the most appropriate response isn't another 3,000-word explanation. Perhaps it's simply: “No. You made the claim. You provide the evidence.” And if they respond with another 17 links, three screenshots, a video from an anonymous bloke in his garage and the immortal words “WAKE UP!”... Then perhaps we should finally take the advice of neither science nor psychology. Perhaps we should resort to the ancient and remarkably effective human tradition of taking the piss. Because if someone repeatedly substitutes paranoia for evidence, treats ignorance as enlightenment and interprets every contradiction as proof that they're right.. Continuous, merciless ridicule may not change their mind — but it might at least make everyone else less inclined to take them seriously. And frankly, after reading some of the contributions to this thread... the material is practically writing itself.
