[lbo-talk] The Problem of Conspiracy Theorists at the Anti-War Meeting Yesterday

[ravi]

On 11 Jul, 2007, at 16:35 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>
>> Becuase the risk is the whole conversation will end up being about
>> 9/11 conspiracies, and not about ending the war. It'd be a perfect
>> COINTELPRO-style strategy, actually.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> ^^^^^
>> CB; Isn't mention of COINTELPRO conspiracy theorizing ?
>
> Not in the same way. But we've been over this a hundred times and
> since the a/c is not working in the office, I'm not up for 101.
>

Alright then, let me do it!

Intermediate Rhetorics: Conspiracy Theory 101
=============================================

If claim/theory offered:

     If burden of proof not met:

         If I am the one failing to meet the burden:

             Then legitimate theory, to be labelled:

                 * Heterodox

                 * Alternate

                 * Hidden history

                 * The true story

         Else if someone else fails to meet the burden:

             Illegitimate theory to be labelled:

                 * Conspiracy theory

                 * Pomo

                 * Wingnut, nutjob, nutcase, basically some nut!

Hope that helps! As soon as this makes it to the archives, I will  
make a follow-up post pointing to the URL, which should then be  
invoked in a manner akin to the use of Godwin's Law. ;-)

	--ravi