Conspiracy theorist is a label that has been haphazardly tossed around and misappropriated so much that it’s unrecognizable to many people. The arbitrary use of this label in contexts unrelated to its meaning betrays this fact. The shadow side to this misuse is that nefarious actors can weaponize this label against unsuspecting people thereby asserting control over those people or causing harm to them. But before we get into how this label is weaponized against people, and how to counter it, it’s important to first understand what the words that make up this label actually mean.

Words Have Meaning

In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, conspiracy is defined as “the act of conspiring together; an agreement among conspirators; a group of conspirators” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy).

Conspire, as an intransitive verb, means “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement; a scheme” and “to act in harmony toward a common end” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire).

Thus, in common parlance, conspiracy infers an agreement between multiple actors to carry out some scheme or plan of action toward some desired end—a concept with neutral connotations. A person could conspire to plan a surprise birthday party or they could conspire to rob a bank.

In criminal law, however, conspiracy denotes criminal behavior with punitive consequences. In the Model Penal Code, to be guilty of conspiracy a person “must have the purpose of promoting or facilitating a criminal offense, and with that purpose must agree (or believe that he is agreeing) with another that they will engage in the criminal offense or in solicitation to commit it” (Wechsler et al., 1985).

This distinction—between scheming about something noncriminal and planning to commit a crime—is important to understand because words have meaning and misuse of words has consequences.

A theorist is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as “a person who theorizes” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theorist). Thus, a theorist is someone who forms theories about something. And, for purposes of this article, a theory is “an unproven assumption” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory). In other words, a theorist is a person who posits or entertains an unproven assumption.

Thus, if one were to describe conspiracy theorist according to these definitions, it would be a person who enters into an agreement with another person or persons with the purpose of promoting an unproven assumption. However, it's important to further clarify this definition. Whereas in science, unproven infers that an assumption could very well be true but it has not yet been proven true through the scientific method, in other contexts, unproven could mean that an opinion or belief is plausible but it's not necessarily been accepted as a mainstream belief or it hasn't been absorbed into the popular narrative. A conspiracy theorist would then be a person who enters into agreement with other persons for the purpose of promoting an unproven assumption but would not be a person who enters into agreement with other persons for the purpose of promoting an opinion or belief that may not be accepted by the mainstream or popular narrative but may nevertheless be valid or at least credible. Without scheming with other people to bring about a result by promoting an opinion or belief that the person knows to be unproven and not just unpopular, that person isn't a conspiracy theorist.

“Conspiracy Theorist” Label as a Weapon

Mistaken misuse of this label is forgivable because the person misunderstood what it means. At most, the mistaken person is guilty of assaulting language. But intentionally accusing someone of being a conspiracy theorist to throw that person off balance or intimidate that person into compliance or neutralize that person in an argument is much more damaging. Because many peoples’ entire reputation is online now, a false accusation of being a conspiracy theorist can ruin a person’s reputation in a matter of minutes. Moreover, given the current trend toward social entropy in the last few years, just the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist can make someone a target for vicious and often hostile attacks—both verbal and physical. As a quick trip through the virtual agora of social media will show, this psychological technique used to control people by accusing them of being a conspiracy theorist is quite effective unless the intended victim is wise to it and knows how to successfully counter it.

Countering the False Accusation of being a Conspiracy Theorist

To counter a false accusation of being a conspiracy theorist, it’s important to understand why misuse of this label is wrong. Wrong is used here not in a moral sense but in a strategic sense. If a person knows why an accusation is wrong--why it's invalid or inaccurate--and can articulate this in a counterargument, that person stands a better chance of successfully rebutting a false accusation.

First, misuse of this label by arbitrarily applying it is wrong on a fundamental level. Accusing a person of being a conspiracy theorist simply because that person expresses their opinions or beliefs about an issue or topic that may not align with mainstream thought or popular narrative misappropriates the actual meaning of conspiracy theorist. For example, I can disagree with the validity of another’s beliefs but I can’t rightly accuse that person of intentionally scheming with other people to promote those beliefs just because that person holds those beliefs in common with others and voices them and those beliefs may not be popular or a majority view. For this accusation to fit appropriately, that person would need to be in agreement with other people specifically with the purpose of promoting an unproven belief to bring about a common end. Otherwise, every expression of an unpopular opinion and belief held in common by different people would be a conspiracy theory, and merely expressing the opinion or belief in agreement with another person would make these people conspiracy theorists whether or not the person actually, in fact, schemed with the others to promote this opinion or belief to bring about an act or common end. Such arbitrary labeling of opinions and beliefs would chill free speech and effectively prohibit open discourse. This would negate the very benefit of such open discourse which is the primary way of challenging unpopular assumptions through open critical examination and constructive argument to determine their validity.

Solution: Do not accept the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist on its face. Challenge the premise of the accusation by establishing the plausibility of your opinion or belief (i.e., introduce evidence that supports it). If it is indeed supported by evidence, then it is not an unproven assumption (i.e., theory) and thus you are not a conspiracy theorist in this case. And, even if you did act with others to bring about a particular result (i.e., conspiracy), the fact that the assumption is supported by evidence negates the accusation that it’s an unproven theory. In other words, because your opinion or belief is supported by evidence, you are not, therefore, guilty of being a “conspiracy theorist” according to the definition of this label no matter who you schemed with or what result you wanted to produce through an agreement with other people regarding that opinion or belief. On the other hand, if you personally hold an opinion or entertain a belief that may not be mainstream or popular and that you know is unproven and you haven't entered into a scheme or plan of action with other people using that unproven opinion or belief toward some desired end, you're still not guilty of being a conspiracy theorist because there's no conspiracy. Thus, even if you haven't established the plausibility of your opinion or belief, you should still establish the fact that you have a right to hold an opinion and entertain a belief even if it hasn't been validated or accepted by the mainstream. Acceptance by the majority is not a prerequisite for holding an opinion or having a belief nor has it ever been. Some of the best advancements of the human species were contributions by people outside the mainstream who lived on the fringes of society.

Second, it’s difficult to agree on what constitutes “proof” when it comes to an unproven assumption. For purposes of this article, proof is defined as “something that induces certainty or establishes validity” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof). But herein lies the problem. The “something” that validates an assumption as true or at least supports it as likely being true is arguably open to interpretation. Take, for example, science. Science per se is not absolute nor is it true on its own standing. There’s no such thing as “settled” science because science, from the Latin scientia, infers “knowledge, awareness, understanding, branch of knowledge, learning” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science), and this is constantly evolving as the human mind that actively engages in scientia continues to evolve. And although scientific learning produces “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science), there’s few situations where such general truths are completely infallible or unquestionable. So, even in science, establishing a theory can be challenging and is open to argument by opposing schools of thought that may have equally valid interpretations albeit from differing methods and perspectives. This becomes more problematic outside the confines of carefully controlled scientific activities because proof is often harder to measure or determine in these situations, and more often than not what constitutes proof in these situations is based more on peoples’ feelings about facts than actual facts themselves. There is also the specter of bias in these situations that is more likely to contaminate the validation process here than in more controlled scientific activities. Either way, whether validating an assumption in a scientific study or in a political debate or in social conversation about public issues, ensuring the “something” that establishes validity is itself valid is a difficult task.

Solution: When you're accused of being a conspiracy theorist, suggest to the accuser that any determination of the validity of your opinion or belief include a careful examination using multiple sources of evidence, not just the evidence they introduce or reference. This can help prevent the omission of strong evidence in favor of weaker or irrelevant evidence based on bias, groupthink, and other exclusionary tactics commonly used to keep out evidence. Groupthink is particularly problematic here because if a group is accusing a person of being a conspiracy theorist, it is almost guaranteed that the group will not be fair in including other sources of evidence that could potentially invalidate their accusation against the person. Thus, establishing that the accusation itself proves nothing until all available evidence has been examined may serve as a prophylactic against false accusations here although it won’t likely make unreasonable people reasonable.

Finally, misusing the label of conspiracy theorist to control another person is deceptive. Whether this misuse is intended to throw the person off balance, intimidate the person into compliance, or neutralize the person in an argument, such underhanded tactics indicate that the one employing these tactics are themselves trying to bring about an act or produce a result. Accusing your enemy of that which you are guilty (i.e., conspiring to accuse another of conspiracy to damage their reputation) or accusing someone of something which they are not actually guilty of (i.e., false accusation) is a form of projective identification and gaslighting. The accuser persists that the person is a conspiracy theorist until that person finally identifies with this label whether by acquiescence from psychical exhaustion, pressure to conform, invoked guilt (or worse, shame), or constitutionally weak will power (i.e., predisposition to suggestibility). In general, people that are wrongly accused of being a conspiracy theorist often immediately become defensive without counterarguing why this false accusation is wrong. Reacting defensively to such an accusation without articulating why it is wrong creates an impression that the accused person may actually be guilty of the charge. Although being defensive in response to a false accusation does not necessarily mean a person is guilty of the thing they’re being accused of, for whatever reason people often interpret such a defensive response as evidence of guilt.

Solution: Assuming the accuser is intentionally using such deceptive devices (and even if they aren’t), DO NOT react emotionally to the accusation. Instead, clearly articulate the reason why the accusation is wrong or misplaced. If the accusation is patently false, to avoid acting out emotionally it may help to tell yourself that the intent of the accuser is obviously to get an emotional reaction from you, and if they do, they win the argument. Then, proceed to explain in articulate terms why their accusation is false. Even if the audience disagrees with your argument, you still argued articulately and this is always more beneficial than being emotionally reactive.

In Conclusion…

A false accusation of being a conspiracy theorist can lead to harm against the accused. It can severely damage one’s reputation. This is especially harmful in our time now with virtual interaction where reputations are created and destroyed in a matter of minutes on the internet. Now, unlike before, accusations like conspiracy theorist have more harmful consequences because such labels are more widely circulated on a much broader scale of publicity. And because such accusations are often made in written form, they are more difficult to deny and more permanently recorded and thus easily retrieved. Moreover, because of the breakdown in society presently, people are less inhibited to act out violently against others. This, combined with the underlying social psychological mechanisms that motivate such antisocial behavior (e.g., emotional contagion, shared psychosis, hysteria, etc.), increases the likelihood of harm against people accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Thus, for the person who chooses to respond to this accusation, it’s important to articulate their counterargument clearly and carefully. Challenge the premise on its face, show the evidence, and don’t react defensively. This may not win the argument but it will enhance the accused person’s credibility in that argument.


References
H. Wechsler et al. (1985). Model Penal Code. Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute.