site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1752 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 25, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(Reposted in the Culture War thread.)

Reading Case Closed has got me thinking about conspiracy theories. I dislike the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist", as they're generally used as terms of dismissal or abuse: characterising a particular hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory" is tantamount to saying that it's untrue, and characterising the person who espouses it as a "conspiracy theorist" is tantamount to calling them paranoid and unserious. But this shouldn't be the case, because conspiracies do happen! Some important historical events really were the product of conspiracies. Imagine if a public figure was killed, you thought he might have been murdered, and I rolled my eyes and said "oh, you're one of those 'murder theorists'." Murders really happen! There's nothing intrinsically ridiculous about the hypothesis that a given dead person might have been intentionally and unlawfully killed by another person; nor is there anything intrinsically ridiculous about the hypothesis that a given event might have been the result of multiple clandestine actors working together to bring it about. As many have noted before me, theories about history or current affairs are rubbished and dismissed as "conspiracy theories" – right up until the very moment they're proven true, at which point they simply become historical fact.

However. We're all familiar with the type of person described by the term "conspiracy theorist". The people in tinfoil hats, the people who never believe the official story, the people who attribute every setback (no matter how trivial) to the dark hand of da Joos/the CIA/the Illuminati. These people may not be paranoid in a clinical sense, but they reflexively jump to the conclusion that there is more to every news story than meets the eye, and the conclusion seems effectively predetermined. They arrive at the conclusion first, then go looking for evidence to support it.

I wish we had better terms for "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist", respectively. When we use the former, what we're really getting at is that a historical event is being attributed to a vast nefarious conspiracy on the basis of little to no evidence. "Conspiracy theory" should be a neutral term which expresses no judgement on whether the theory is true or not, but I think it would be genuinely helpful to have a separate term for how the term is used nowadays i.e. as a particularly far-fetched and implausible example of same. "Truther" is starting to catch on ("9/11 truther", "Lucy Letby truther"), but it would be nice to have a noun for the theory itself, as opposed to the person espousing it.

And when we characterise someone as a "conspiracy theorist", we don't usually mean that they espouse one conspiracy theory and no others. We usually mean that they advance conspiracy theories habitually and reflexively, that there are vast swathes of human history they attribute to the machinations of nefarious organisations operating in secret. People to whom the term "conspiracy theorist" don't, as a rule, endorse the mainstream historical narrative except for one little wrinkle: it's an entirely different worldview, a paranoid style. I think "tinfoil hat wearer" is a much more apt term for people with this worldview or mindset than "conspiracy theorist", except that I'm not sure if anyone actually wore a tinfoil hat in complete sincerity.

What do ye think? Any ideas? What would your preferred terms for these concepts be?

I think it depends. If the person in question is working off some sort of actual evidence, some sort of documents, photos, recordings of an event, I’m willing to entertain the possibility, but I don’t see much benefit in just going off some other guy’s vibes.

I think JFK stinks to high heaven. (For the record I think it was Russian agents, but given the climate at the time, if they’d admitted that, earth would be irradiated by the following nuclear war). That’s not a weird one, and I’m certainly open to other possibilities including a failed defector pulling off a miracle shot by himself and running faster than Usain Bolt only to be captured and murdered on national TV before he could be deposed.

Well, it certainly wasn't a miracle shot, and he didn't have to run faster than Usain Bolt, for starters.

Well, it certainly wasn't a miracle shot,

I wonder how many people calling it a miracle shot (or something similar) have been to Dealey Plaza. I haven't been, but multiple people I've talked to who have been have uniformly commented that the distance of the shot is far, far shorter than TV would lead one to believe.

Per his Marine record, Oswald achieved a rating of 212 with the M1 rifle, two points more than that required for a "sharpshooter" qualification, which indicates that he could hit a ten-inch bullseye from at least 200 yards away, eight times out of ten – and that's without a telescopic sight, only using the M1's iron sights. The FBI considered his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle a very accurate weapon and found that it never misfired in numerous tests. The distance from Oswald's sniper's nest in the TSBD to the point on Elm where the fatal bullet struck Kennedy was, as you say, less than 90 yards, and Oswald had the benefit of a 4x telescopic sight mounted to his rifle. And for all the talk of the supposedly "miraculous" shot, Oswald's first shot missed Kennedy entirely. You can count the second shot a miss as well, assuming that Oswald was aiming for Kennedy's head and struck him in the upper back instead (which might have been survivable). Firing at your target three times and only striking it on the third attempt hardly sounds "miraculous" to me.

A house cat can run faster than Usain Bolt. Don’t diminish my hopes for believing this conspiracy.

Are you sure you don’t want to post this in the CW thread instead? It’s more substantial than a “small question” and would get more exposure there.

EDIT: Yeah, please just post it in the CW thread, it’s literally a CW post and I think we can get a really good discussion out of it.

Suggestion accepted.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats