Dear Friends,
It seems to me, calling someone a “Conspiracy Theorist,” is the fallacy of dismissal by slander. This is a form of ad hominem attack. People use such fallacies when they can’t refute an argument and don’t want to have to deal with an exposed lie, so they socially attack the questioner. A “conspiracy theorist” then is both slander, a person not to be taken seriously, and a means to dismiss an argument you would rather not engage with. This is often done when a conspiracy is threatened with exposure. Such tactics allow a conspiracy to go on indefinitely. Poking Machiavelli in the eye. In that, if a conspiracy can be authoritatively denied it can go on to its conclusion. As in the case of the CIA coverup in the JFK assassination. If they weren’t involved, why keep their involvement secret for six decades?
Dismissal by slander is Kafkaesque in that defending yourself proves you are a conspiracy theorist. The slanderer can sit back and ridicule every point you bring up to “prove” the negative… that you’re not a conspiracy theorist. The debate has changed from the conspiracy to your credibility. Even if you win and retain credibility you lose the argument about the conspiracy. It’s pure catch 22 in scope, effect, and intent. The only way to counter it is not to take the bait. Don’t put your finger in the Chinese finger trap. Instead maintain pressure about the conspiracy while ignoring personal attacks to derail the conversation. If they keep at it, simply call them out. Ask why they don’t want to debate, why only make slanderous attacks? Put the onus on them.
Dismissal by slander is a social attack in that the person slanders, the “conspiracy theorist” is now someone who is crazy and has to be treated as such. The idea is social ostracism as a weapon of censorship. No one wants to be socially attacked. Since we are social beings our status in the hierarchy is critical to our ids and superegos. This gives social attacks more weight in our minds than they actually have. Our social standing is threatened and so we react and put our fingers deeply into the trap. This is another reason dismissal by slander is so effective. People almost can’t help themselves but to take the bait. The logic is simple, attack someone’s social standing and they take their knife from your throat and stab themselves with it instead.
Dismissal by slander shuts down critical thinking. No need to engage with a “conspiracy theorist,” that would be a waste of time. So the argument is never examined. Instead the focus turns on the person with the audacity to shine a light on a conspiracy that would rather remain in the dark. At least until it serves its purpose. Imagine if Brutus and his cohort were exposed on their way to the Senate to kill Caesar? Then they claimed the informant was merely a conspiracy theorist, and were believed? The assassination would have gone on without a hitch. Even as the whistle blower would have been killed for spreading lies. Such ad hominem attacks are ideal when critical thinking is the enemy. The only time critical thinking is the enemy is when someone is lying.
Dismissal by slander is done by people who are telling a lie or maintaining a narrative that’s counter to the truth. Usually conspirators to a conspiracy or those with minds firmly closed. The advantage to the closed minded is that it saves them having to think for themselves. Some people would rather have others do their thinking… freeing them up for other tasks. Nevertheless, dismissal by slander is highly effective at shutting down critical thinking, is a catch 22 trap, and is a social attack. Therefore it’s the definition of a spurious argument. The best way to avoid the trap is not to take the bait. Continue cutting at the conspiracy with the knife of logic. Refuse to turn it on yourself. If pressed, turn it on the foe and ask why they don’t want to debate… but instead dismiss by slander?
Sincerely,
John Pepin
